Design Corruptor

[Nibelung44]

Once it has operated, can I destroy it, the backup server, the enemy station, etc.?

[keith.lamothe]

Once it has operated, can I destroy it, the backup server, the enemy station, etc.?

Yep, the effect is permanent, regardless of what else happens

[Nibelung44]

Thanks Keith

I corrupted an Armor rotter design but I see there is another backup server elsewhere with same design. Does it means the AI can still produce these? Oh wait, perhaps it belongs to another AI and 'corrupt' only prevent one AI to use them? Less interesting!

[Tridus]

The two AIs can get different bonus ships, so you'd have to do it against both.

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, probably the other AI's copy.  That said I could make it global, though that would mean making it so two AIs with the same bonus ship would only result in one backup server with that bonus type, as otherwise it can get a bit confusing to know whether a given server has been hacked, etc.

[tadrinth]

Given that once a design corruptor hack completes, there is no further use for either the design backup OR the design corruptor itself, I would kind of like it if they both self-destructed at the end of the hack. 

[BisonMD]

I think it would also be a little more intuitive if design corrupting blocked both AIs, though I guess that would throw off the balance a bit. It's kind of confusing to corrupt a design and then see it still showing up.

[Cyborg]

I think it would also be a little more intuitive if design corrupting blocked both AIs, though I guess that would throw off the balance a bit. It's kind of confusing to corrupt a design and then see it still showing up.

You have a reasonable case here. I would vote for it.

[TechSY730]

I think it would also be a little more intuitive if design corrupting blocked both AIs, though I guess that would throw off the balance a bit. It's kind of confusing to corrupt a design and then see it still showing up.

No offense, but I vote no.

One of the important things to remember about AI war (and in fact one of the central tenants) is that you are facing 2 distinct players, not one. This includes things like unlocks. Just because you damage 1 player's production doesn't mean its teammate's production was hurt.

That said, the description for design corrupter needs to make this clear.

[Zeyi]

I think it would also be a little more intuitive if design corrupting blocked both AIs, though I guess that would throw off the balance a bit. It's kind of confusing to corrupt a design and then see it still showing up.

No offense, but I vote no.

One of the important things to remember about AI war (and in fact one of the central tenants) is that you are facing 2 distinct players, not one. This includes things like unlocks. Just because you damage 1 player's production doesn't mean its teammate's production was hurt.

That said, the description for design corrupter needs to make this clear.

I agree, redundancy is a clearly major feature of having two AIs, to move away from this would be illogical and not very artificially intelligent

[LaughingThesaurus]

Yeah, I held off on voting on that for that reason. I feel like design corruptions automatically affecting both AIs will just flat out end up being a bit too powerful. You find one juicy planet to corrupt, and you're set for mass sabotage for both AIs. Both AIs happen to have the same unlock? Steal one, then corrupt the other. Neither AI has the ship, and you now do.
I think it needs a little bit of minor adjustment so that it feels more intuitive, but that's all it needs.

[Cyborg]

It doesn't matter how many AI's there are. I think the player has a reasonable expectation that using a design corrupter…corrupts a design.

[PokerChen]

I don't believe hacking one design should necessarily corrupt both-AI's access. If this is true, then the converse has to apply -  both AIs should have access to the ship-designs of either. So 1 everything AI will unlock all possible ship-types for both AIs.

IMO clarification is needed to specify which AI actually owns the design hosted by the server. This is currently not done (so it seems), as an AI 1 design can appear on an AI 2 planet, under the ownership of AI 2.  This is valuable information in many cases, such as a Mad Bomber AI and a Turtle AI - you want to remove bombers from the first, and blade spawners/tackle drone launchers from the second.

[keith.lamothe]

Logic, realism, and other secondary issues aside, the main point of design corruption is for the player to be able to say "you know what, I'm sick of (ship type x), and I don't want to see it anymore".  So having it blank it out for both players seems appropriate.

[Draco18s]

Logic, realism, and other secondary issues aside, the main point of design corruption is for the player to be able to say "you know what, I'm sick of (ship type x), and I don't want to see it anymore".  So having it blank it out for both players seems appropriate.

Conversely, there should only be one design storage per unit type, so you can't hack it, then corrupt it.

On a tangential subject, I've love to see a "corrupted design" unit that looks like a train wreck and has no stats--pea shooter gun, no real HP, no armor, no special abilities, etc. that effectively replaces whatever unit you corrupted.  The AI would still reinforce with this unit and use it in waves, and so on, as if the AI wasn't aware that the design got corrupted.

It would never use it in exos, which I think are the only ... way the AI has to "pay resource points" in order to send powerful/many units with, so that would avoid the "but how much is it worth, FP wise?  Does this mean the AI is going to throw like 800 of them at me instead of its usual 200 fighters?" kind of deal.

At higher difficulties the AI would recognize the error and stop using the ship after some duration, on 10 it would see the error immediately and never reinforce with it.