Design Corruptor

[Cyborg]

People don't know what's going on under the covers. There is one AI thread even if there are two home worlds. Think of it as two different squads from the same army, each one with a different specialty. It's still the same AI. There is only one AI, technically.

[keith.lamothe]

I do generally refer to the AI in the singular, because that's mostly how it operates.  The division is more than superficial in terms of how the forces act, but it's not like the two players are separate factions, etc.

[PokerChen]

Stressing the unity of these two AIs from game implementation is rather pragmatic. Although, the fact that destroying one Home Command does not affect its hosted AI indicates that something is afoot.
 
To everyone, are the following factors affecting your position?
- the current HaP cost of design corruption,
- that you don't know which AI owns the backup server, (I say this because I have seen two copies of a design on planets of the same colour),
-  relative worth of downloading and corrupting from the other thread.

[Zeyi]

I really have to say I don't like this, it feels like we are moving away from something fundamental in AIW, this is supposed to be the most superior AI ever created, and redundancy is at its core - hence the two homeworlds. It defeats all logic to say that something which affects one affects both, an AI would not make that mistake. The wiki has always described the AI as kind of like a cloud network, which to be honest means designs should not be permanently corruptible in the first place.. If we are going to keep this mechanic is there nothing else we can do to make it more believable? Perhaps design corruptions effects both AI but only for X number of hours, so you'd have to plan when to take out specific backup servers to disable a ship. Eg, before you make an assault on a planet where that ship would be troublesome in defence. This would bring more strategy and planning into the decision too.

Perhaps I'm in a minority in feeling this, I just get all worked up when things move away from some of their core values and ethos 

EDIT: People suggesting we're obsessed with the lore, or not interested in the 'fun' of the game. Consider that some of us enjoy the lore, and enjoy the fun that brings to the game for us when we play out campaigns - but only when it is consistent and correct. I feel there must be a compromise here but perhaps I'm being a pedant.

[Tridus]

The only real problem I have with it is cost. If both AIs happen to get the same unlock and I take it out, I've taken out two unlocks instead of one. The cost of the hack should reflect that.

I get that hacking a design and having it still showing up would be weird and annoying, so taking it out from both AIs with a single hack is pretty reasonable. But you are in the end hacking two AIs and taking out two ship unlocks, and the cost should reflect that.

[chemical_art]

I get that hacking a design and having it still showing up would be weird and annoying, so taking it out from both AIs with a single hack is pretty reasonable. But you are in the end hacking two AIs and taking out two ship unlocks, and the cost should reflect that.

Well, if the AI happened to have two ship designs and you copied the design, should you be able to get twice the cap? Or half the cap if you only get one? You are hacking two AI's after all (by the 2 AI logic)


Keep in mind that when a design is removed from the AI, it is not like the AI ignores them in calculations. All it does is shift the unit to a different unit. AI values don't decrease, only change. For this hack as inferior to copying the design, which absolutely increases player power relative to human power.

A key benefit of having a single corruptor design disable all ships is that it would also prevent AI from using it for AI HW uses, which I think is very key. I would unimaginably pissed if I disabled a ship design only to have it appear again during the hardest phase of the game.

[Draco18s]

Keep in mind that when a design is removed from the AI, it is not like the AI ignores them in calculations. All it does is shift the unit to a different unit. AI values don't decrease, only change. For this hack as inferior to copying the design, which absolutely increases player power relative to human power.

Which is why the idea of a "corrupted unit" that only shows up after a ship design hack amuses me greatly.  The AI was still trying to build the unit you corrupted, and so for X minutes after the hack it reinforces/sends waves of this bad design.

The hack has a noticeable impact on play in the longer term (due to some of the AI's ship "cap" being little more than worthless scrap) but not permanent.

[zleorg]

Which is why the idea of a "corrupted unit" that only shows up after a ship design hack amuses me greatly.  The AI was still trying to build the unit you corrupted, and so for X minutes after the hack it reinforces/sends waves of this bad design.

The hack has a noticeable impact on play in the longer term (due to some of the AI's ship "cap" being little more than worthless scrap) but not permanent.

It would be kind of fun that instead of the unit disappearing by hacking it you'd corrupt it to only be MK I forever or maybe whenever that type shows up in a wave it starts with 20% reclamation damage.  Then you'll be guaranteed to have some come over to your side after each battle.

[Draco18s]

It would be kind of fun that instead of the unit disappearing by hacking it you'd corrupt it to only be MK I forever or maybe whenever that type shows up in a wave it starts with 20% reclamation damage.  Then you'll be guaranteed to have some come over to your side after each battle.

I'm not sure about this, TBH, but as a separate mechanic of somekind?  Maybe.

[Diazo]

Keep in mind that when a design is removed from the AI, it is not like the AI ignores them in calculations. All it does is shift the unit to a different unit. AI values don't decrease, only change. For this hack as inferior to copying the design, which absolutely increases player power relative to human power.

This.

I support the Corruptor removing the design from both AI's as you are not actually lowering the absolute number of ships the AI gets.

For me, the point of the Design Corruptor is to remove that unit from the game, not from just part of the game.

However, if you are doing a Design Corruption, it is because you want that unit gone, so I do support raising the HaP cost of the design corruptor to medium or medium-high.

The design corruptor should not be a regular hack, it should be a case of a specific unit giving you grief so you want it gone, so the HaP cost should reflect that.

I don't see this as removing the unit from one or two AIs, I see this as you removing the unit from the game and it should cost HaP appropriate to this.

D.

[LaughingThesaurus]

The more I think about it, the more I want the AI to actually have some kind of response to this. It's like someone else said. The AI is a cloud network, redundancy is a thing. I think corruption of the design should affect both AIs just because that's what's actually intuitive... but the AI should also not just sit there and take it. Presumably, when you get the AIP to the point that the AIs get ship unlocks, that's the point where the AI says "Hang on, these guys are actually a threat and what we have isn't working. Let's try something else." So, when a ship flat-out isn't working, why not have the AI respond by just immediately replacing it? This way, the corruption won't really flat-out reduce the amount of ship types the AI has, but you can delete an AI ship type and have it replaced with something else. In this scenario, the AI realizes that "This ship type isn't working anymore. I don't know why. Let's increase security and get another ship out there."

Now I wonder on a different topic as well. If there are redundant backup servers, should we also squash those down to 1? This'd prevent people from copying, then corrupting the design... unless there aren't actually redundant backup servers.

[PokerChen]

There are definitely redundant servers - when both AIs have them unlocked. I would potentially favour the AIs obtaining a replacement ship-type. On the additional responses front, I think this is already somewhat represented by hacking response itself - HaP should encapsulate their appropriate response.

 On the lore aspect, aside from cloud redundancy, the ability to corrupt designs is anyway questionable on another basis. The AIs are meant to have all of their production capacity in another galaxy and simply warps in units as necessary. I don't think these extra-galactic infrastructure would be reachable by human hacking. (In fact, only the hybrid hives build fleet ships in-galaxy.) These lore problems are inherent in every game, and it may be easier to not get too distracted by them. That way points towards compulsory 10/10 games + Shark + Retaliation.

[keith.lamothe]

I don't think these extra-galactic infrastructure would be reachable by human hacking.

Not directly by the humans, but the AI stuff in one galaxy talks to the AI stuff in the other.  Corrupting the local copies is only part of what's going on.

[Draco18s]

Now I wonder on a different topic as well. If there are redundant backup servers, should we also squash those down to 1? This'd prevent people from copying, then corrupting the design... unless there aren't actually redundant backup servers.

There exists "two" right now because of both AIs have a ship type unlocked, they both get a server for it.  Corrupting 1 (currently) removes it from one of the AIs, but not the other.

If we are going to revoke access to both AIs, then yes, they should be "crushed" down to 1.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Yeah, it seems like the best idea then is to make the backup servers store all of the local copies of bonus ships. Only one for each different bonus ship type in play. Corrupt one, and the ship is completely removed from play. That way, no player can steal then corrupt, and it's something that does actually make sense as well. The AIs work so closely together, after all.