Design Corruptor

[Tridus]

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.

Maybe if both Ais have it,MIT should be removed from both but treated as two hacks in HaP cost.

[Cyborg]

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.

Maybe if both Ais have it,MIT should be removed from both but treated as two hacks in HaP cost.

If you want to double the hack cost, it should be a mechanic worth doubling the cost, which I don't think it is. You are getting hung up on the lore- the fact there are two AI players- instead of the game design or what's fun.

[Tridus]

If you want to double the hack cost, it should be a mechanic worth doubling the cost, which I don't think it is. You are getting hung up on the lore- the fact there are two AI players- instead of the game design or what's fun.

Since when is the fact that there's two AIs not part of the game design? It was only designed that way.

[Draco18s]

Since when is the fact that there's two AIs not part of the game design? It was only designed that way.

The problem is that the AIs are interchangable.  It's largely irrelevant what color the units are when your attacking a planet or defending a wave.

[TechSY730]

Since when is the fact that there's two AIs not part of the game design? It was only designed that way.

The problem is that the AIs are interchangable.  It's largely irrelevant what color the units are when your attacking a planet or defending a wave.

Sure, once an attack starts its largely irrelevant. But when it comes to determining where to go next and what "tech paths" I go for, I start caring very much about the differences between the two AI players in my game.

[Draco18s]

Sure, once an attack starts its largely irrelevant. But when it comes to determining where to go next and what "tech paths" I go for, I start caring very much about the differences between the two AI players in my game.

But is that a significant enough distinction to say "I don't want AI 1 to have spire blade spawners" but it'd be OK for AI 2 to still use them?

Or is it acceptable that a design corrupt breaks the design for both AIs at the same time (same or different cost not being relevant right now).

[chemical_art]

I'm of an opinion that if a design corrupter is used against a unit type, it should is should disable it from both AI's if avialable for increased cost.

The whole point of using it is to avoid seeing further examples of that unit. The fact two AI's use it is downright confusing for new players, and frustrating all around.

[Draco18s]

I'm of an opinion that if a design corrupter is used against a unit type, it should is should disable it from both AI's if avialable for increased cost.

Personally I'm of the opinion that the cost would stay the same, regardless, as if only one AI has a unit, corrupting the design should prevent the other AI from ever unlocking that design in the future.

[TechSY730]

Geez, I wonder if rolling back the change that allowed the AIs to get seperate, post game-seed unlocks in light of this new mechanic (aka, make it that the AIP based unlocks are the same between the two AIs again)

Wait, do you get a chance to corrupt AIP based AI ship type unlocks? (I have deliberately avoided these past few patches until the hacking can get a bit more polished)
If not, then what I said in the first paragraph is irrelevant.

[Draco18s]

Wait, do you get a chance to corrupt AIP based AI ship type unlocks? (I have deliberately avoided these past few patches until the hacking can get a bit more polished)

I have no idea if those even get design databases, TBH.

I'm speaking from a purely hypothetical standpoint that I know Keith will understand (game designer minds think alike and all that jazz) even if he doesn't necessarily agree.

[LaughingThesaurus]

The thing is if you just corrupt one AI's design while both AIs have it, you could conceivably not notice any difference at all. The two AIs are in the game for both gameplay AND lore reasons. The gameplay reason, of course, is to keep the game more varied. I think taking that away would be a mistake... What I'm proposing is we just allow this change to go through for now, and see if it needs a cost increase later. To be entirely frank, I don't really think it does. Ship corrupting is already one of those mechanics I'd never planned on using anyway. Maybe this kind of change will make me want to use it.

[chemical_art]

The thing is if you just corrupt one AI's design while both AIs have it, you could conceivably not notice any difference at all. The two AIs are in the game for both gameplay AND lore reasons. The gameplay reason, of course, is to keep the game more varied. I think taking that away would be a mistake... What I'm proposing is we just allow this change to go through for now, and see if it needs a cost increase later. To be entirely frank, I don't really think it does. Ship corrupting is already one of those mechanics I'd never planned on using anyway. Maybe this kind of change will make me want to use it.

For me, if after I used a design corrupter to remove a unit, I expect that unit to be gone, period. Lore or other reasons be damned. I. Want. It. Gone.

Anything other then this would aggravate me, for it fails miserable in the intended goal of removing the unit. Especially with so many competing opportunity costs for the hacking resource.


[I'm not sure if we are on the same page here.]

[Draco18s]

For me, if after I used a design corrupter to remove a unit, I expect that unit to be gone, period. Lore or other reasons be damned. I. Want. It. Gone.

Precisely, which is why I mention preventing it from showing up as a random unlock.

[TIE Viper]

Wait, do you get a chance to corrupt AIP based AI ship type unlocks? (I have deliberately avoided these past few patches until the hacking can get a bit more polished)

I have no idea if those even get design databases, TBH.

I believe that once the AI's get a AIP unlock, new backup servers are spawned to cover what was unlocked.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Yeah, we're on the same page. I agree, but I do feel like if it's too powerful, we might have to be open for a cost increase for further corruptions. That, or give the AI some unique way to respond, such as by giving it a different ship instead. Heck, maybe corruptions can always have the same HaP cost, and permanently invalidate a single ship the AI has from ever appearing again, even as future unlocks... but its base cost is enough AIP for an AI to unlock a new ship.