Does AI strength to AIP need adjustment? (aka, is AIP too restrictive?)

[Diazo]

Well, hmmm.

Off the top of my head, my first thought is to reduce the energy collector income.

Energy is the limiter on how many ships you can have active at once, so my first thought to making the player take more systems is that.

That's about as subtle as the CSGs though and go over about as well. (For all that I leave CSGs enabled in my games, I actually like them.)

The other thing is to reduce the knowledge income from planets so your fleet does not get as big as fast. Again, this is you forcing us to change though. The logic being if our fleet does not get as big, AIP does not have to scale as fast as it does.

The other though is to scale back the AIP response somewhat, but increase the strategic reserve proportionately. You'd need a bigger fleet to take the AI HWs then, but with the AIP response scaled back you can get that bigger fleet easier.

The other thing to do is curve AIP the other way. So until about 100 AIP it shoots up, then levels off. Never mind, that's effectively just turning AIP auto-progress back on.

The more I think on it, the more I'd be okay with removing the option to disable AIP auto-progress totally. I think it can be set to 1 per 60 minutes? That would have no (to very minor) effect on AIP throughout the game but the fact that it is on at all would change how the player plays.

AIP would then get a little nerf to compensate for the fact that AIP will be higher as players move into the end game. Balancing it around 1AIP/15mins sounds about right to me.


The other option I could see working (once tweaked) is something like dropped the AIP for a command station to 10 AIP and a warp gate to 3 so capturing a system costs less. Then boost the strategic reserve so we can't just waltz in with the same sized fleet and the new lower AIP. The strategic reserve mechanic might need tweaking in how it deploys for this to actually work.

D.

[Toranth]

If I don't make moderate AIP (say, the 100 to 200 range) hurt really bad (at least on the higher difficulties), then many of you never get challenged, because you never go higher than that.

Basically the game has trained you "never ever take AIP unless you absolutely need to" and you have learned that lesson well   Such that I then have to "chase" by bringing the serious AIP consequences down to where you keep it or the game's going to be a cakewalk (unless you have some non-AIP-based threat enabled like hybrids or FS, which can pose moderate to serious problems of their own).

Actually I think that's it right there.  By moving away from AIP as the ONLY way to determine AI response, you can get some flexibilty in controlling the AI's actions. 
For example, if the AI responds to destruction of the CSGs with significantly increased waves/CPAs/whatever, regardless of the AIP level, then you'd really want to take more planets to prepare for the AI's response.  Sure, the AIP from those additional captured systems would hurt a bit through bigger waves and stuff, but if it is overshadowed by the response due to the CSGs going down, then it becomes worth it.
Another, similar, idea would be to have the AI response increase as the humans approach the AI homeworlds.  If your closest system is 8 hops away, the AI-distance response is low.  If you capture a Core world, the AI bumps up the response a LOT, even if the core world is only the second world captured.
A general ratio of human ships to AI ships is another potential response factor, or a total-human-firepower measure.

Now, some of these can be implemented through the current AIP scheme.  Make taking down a CSG network give AIP +10/20/50/100/150 as each network goes down.  Then rebalance so the AIP response is designed for 500 or so.  Maybe add an 'invincibility' timer to the CSGs, so you are required to delay between destroying them (to prevent that last-second rush).

Distance to homeworld could be done by just adding more +AIP things (warp gates?) to worlds closer to the AI HWs.



I'm sure there are more, better ideas out there.  But if there are ways OTHER than AIP to balance the AI, I think the players would be far more likely to take AIP.

The more I think on it, the more I'd be okay with removing the option to disable AIP auto-progress totally. I think it can be set to 1 per 60 minutes? That would have no (to very minor) effect on AIP throughout the game but the fact that it is on at all would change how the player plays.

I usually play with AIP/time on, using the default 1/30 mins.  However, if I'm playing with Civ Leaders or Colony Rebellions, I don't.  Those already require AIP/time response.  Why require doubling up on that?

[orzelek]

<cut>

The more I think on it, the more I'd be okay with removing the option to disable AIP auto-progress totally. I think it can be set to 1 per 60 minutes? That would have no (to very minor) effect on AIP throughout the game but the fact that it is on at all would change how the player plays.

I usually play with AIP/time on, using the default 1/30 mins.  However, if I'm playing with Civ Leaders or Colony Rebellions, I don't.  Those already require AIP/time response.  Why require doubling up on that?

This is basically show stopper for me. Additional factions or not you want to change the game to add forced timer.
Please consider that others like playing in different ways and don't force your way around

[keith.lamothe]

You know, it's times like this I really respect game designers and software architects in general.

* keith.lamothe detects an ambush.

Basically, since you can't please everyone, who do you please, and in what areas, in ways that are still compatible with the point of your product?

Largely it's a matter of seeing who's actually right (generally not me, and generally not the loudest voice), and for everyone seeing what they actually want (which doesn't generally align exactly with what they say they want).

[Hearteater]

I think Energy is the biggest factor in being able to get by with so few systems.  Since I can make Matter Converters, and protect them on my homeworld, I can effectively have unlimited energy as long as my M+C remains positive.  I really feel Energy should be a lot more strictly like Supply in Starcraft.  If I have X planets, I have X*k "supply" to support whatever units I want.  Then Choke Point energy costs can be balanced such that we can't build an unassailable world with 4 planets worth of Energy.  A simple change would be each Force Field after the first in a single system costs an extra 1000 Energy.  Since stacking Force Fields are the most common element of tough Choke Points, that should help force people with Choke Points to expand while not punishing those with no viable choke points.  This could possibly be applied to other defenses, like Fortresses or even maybe turrets.

But one UI change would be needed to support this.  If I'm only going to have X total energy to support my offensive fleet, I need to be able to set my fleet composition on my Space Docks so that repeat build doesn't over-produce and leave me without Bombers or something.  For example Space Dock could have a 3rd mode (build, repeat-build, replace):  In "replace" mode, the # of units to build I set in Space Dock is treated as the maximum # to have in service.  I can then set the increment to build in.  So if I set the Space Dock to x1, it builds one of each type in its queue that isn't already at the max in service value.  If I set it to x10, it builds up to 10 of a ship type before moving on to the next in queue.

[keith.lamothe]

The more I think on it, the more I'd be okay with removing the option to disable AIP auto-progress totally.

There's no way that's going to happen, though

Actually I think that's it right there.  By moving away from AIP as the ONLY way to determine AI response, you can get some flexibilty in controlling the AI's actions. 

But going with something "always on" that's like the hybrid or FS-exo threats goes against the core design goal (back to before the game was originally released) that the player sets the pace of the game.  Optional stuff can do that, but always-on stuff can't.  Well, much

[_K_]

Right now, theres only one point to consider which systems to take: "what does this system have that i can take?".
As result, the mandatory CSG systems are taken, systems with extremely useful goodies are taken, everything else ignored.

You dont need other systems.

You dont need them for knowledge because you can hack at least some of them them. And once you unlock the most vital things, further you start getting diminished returns on knowledge spent.
You dont need them for energy because collectors give plenty, and you can take a ZPG instead of taking some systems for energy. And even if theres no ZPG and you NEED energy, i would rather get a converter than take an additional 20 AIP.
You dont need them for defence because isolated planets can be either sacrificed, or hidden with a jammer.
You dont need for easier routing because a fully neutered AI-controlled system is usually fine for that.
You dont need them for resources... because a boost an individual planet produces is not worth the AIP, and resource income, is of secondary concern at most.


And then there is the point of AIP reducers i have raised earlier. With those reducers, you basically can get 3-4 free planets. As everyone has said, additional AIP feels the most at low AIP levels. With reducers, those AIP levels stay low for longer, and as result taking additional planets matters more.
If you have 10 planets, but only 5 planets worth of AIP, taking another planet increases your planet count by 10%, and AIP by 20%. And that's not counting the fact you have already taken the most desirable planets and upgrades, so the utility you can pull out of this planet is less than of those previous 10.
And another thing about AIP reducers is that you dont much of a fleet to take those out. In addition, since they take remove a fixed value of AIP, they favor ultra-low AIP game. If you have accumulated 100 AIP through your conquests, 60 AIP reduction gives you 60% reduction.
If you have accumulated 200, thats only 30% reduction.

[chemical_art]

Still think making aip response so it doesnt rise so sharply at ultra low aip but at mid aip it evens back out.

[Toranth]

Actually I think that's it right there.  By moving away from AIP as the ONLY way to determine AI response, you can get some flexibilty in controlling the AI's actions. 

But going with something "always on" that's like the hybrid or FS-exo threats goes against the core design goal (back to before the game was originally released) that the player sets the pace of the game.  Optional stuff can do that, but always-on stuff can't.  Well, much

That's kind of what I trying for with my suggestions.  Taking down a CSG, capturing systems closer to the AI, first raid on the AI HW, building up a large fleet - these all things the player can do on his/her own schedule.  The minor details of things like system captures would be minor compared to the impact of the major 'storyline' events the player does.

I did forget for a minute that CSGs are optional, though.  This idea would be hard to replicate in a non-CSG game.  Hmmm.  Some milestones, like fleet strength, attacking AI HW, taking down Core Guardposts, destroying the first AI - these are constant.  But CSGs are such convenient milestones...

[Diazo]

The more I think on it, the more I'd be okay with removing the option to disable AIP auto-progress totally.

There's no way that's going to happen, though

Ya, I know. Still it was a thought worth tossing out there.

However, thinking more on the strategic reserve, I'm thinking that is probably where attention should be focused if we want to do something about this without overhauling the AIP system completely.

Could we get something that shows us how big the strategic reserve is on  the AI HWs somehow? Something like the barracks, but indestructible?

Where I am going with this is if we boosted the strategic reserve by X amount and let the player know about it, the player would look at the ships waiting in strategic reserve, look at the number of ships in his fleet and go "Yes, time to attack" or "No, I need a bigger fleet".

Then boost both the floor the strategic reserve starts at and it's upper bound so that the strategic reserve is actually quite a fight, and then reduce AIP scaling as appropriate. The goal here is that taking more worlds, and so boosting AIP, is not as painful, in exchange for the Homeworlds needing a bigger fleet which requires more worlds captured.

D.

[_K_]

The goal here is that taking more worlds, and so boosting AIP, is not as painful, in exchange for the Homeworlds needing a bigger fleet which requires more worlds captured.

Since i only need to defeat each homeworld once, why wouldnt i just use a few additional warheads? Instead of taking an additional planet, i could have used 20 MKI warheads, or 10 for each homeworld.
Or, if my fleet is able to destroy at least some of the guardposts, why would i go for an additional planet, if i could just spend a little more time, attacking the home repeatedly?

[LordSloth]

Random idea: Make special forces a bit similar to the Nemesis guarding the AI Homeworlds, but on a curve.

The patrol (reinforce/max) increases rapidly from 0-100, increases less from 100-200, starts declining after 200-300 AIP.

Personally, I haven't yet learned the lesson to keep AIP as low as possible, and my father is much much worse, never jumping systems enroute to a HW. I find auto-aip in the form of spire civs quite sufficent incentive to keep grabbing more territory. If I pop the systems w/o taking them, then I've traded 20 AIP for no extra knowledge and resources. Once I hit around 260 AIP with five liberated and unflipped Civilian Spires, I need to start taking even more territory in order to a). Keep myself from going insane waiting 5-7 hours b). get the knowledge and resources to push through the many defender reinforcements that show up.

[TechSY730]

Good point with the energy. Fixing the energy balance (which has been, IMO, out of wack every since the mechanic shift, leading to a lot of these problems) may help to make energy fulfill its intended role again, pressure people to get more planets to support more units.

One suggestion would be to reduce how much a energy collector produces but reduce its cost and build time, boost what the home command station and the econ command station produces by a lot, boost what other normal command stations produce by a little bit, and to half the energy a matter converter provides and 3/5th (or some similarly a little above a half ratio) the build and ongoing costs of them. (the halfing would soley to provide more "granularity" in energy buffer)
This will help keep the early game from running too low on energy, but make it harder to support an end-game fleet with only a few planets.

Yea, there is the whole ZPG consideration, but considering you have to capture it, that brings up the "how do I defend it?" question again, which is a good strategic tradeoff (I'm ignoring the Z trader, as that is optional)

Also, I like the FF stacking energy penalty idea.


Hopefully some reevaluation of the true "worth" of unlocking MK. IIIs will help some too.


Maybe 0 AIP over time can stay, but be marked as a "cheat option"/"cheese option" like 0x waves or negative handicaps for the AI are, and thus won't be considered a "fair" game if you beat it.

[TechSY730]

About the whole "why go for anything when you can just wait/use more time and still win?" thing. Yes, you can. You could probably win the game an all but the very highest difficulty levels (9.3 and up maybe) with nothing but Mk. I offensive units, a very few (maybe 2 planets worth) of unlocks, warheads, good micro, and time (for rebuilding).
This is a consequence of a game that lets the player "set their own pace", which is one of this game's design goals.
But do you really want to do that; is that really fun?

Unfortunately, this means that players who have not learned a good "pacing", or are OCD about min-maxing non-time resources to even if they have to sacrifice "fun" pacing, tend to encounter games that will "drag" no matter how much of a carrot you "dangle" in front of them if the low risk but very slow, grindy options are available to them. (Though, turning on optional things that force a faster pacing can help)

[keith.lamothe]

Energy may need a bit of a nerf, yes, though there's still the matter of making it so that the player actually needs more ships than their energy/knowledge lets them have.

Just a random idea, not gonna rush off and implement it or whatever, but I wonder about something like:
- Make the AI Home Command Stations not increase AIP itself by 100 (like they currently do), but instead increase the AIP _floor_ by that much.
- Have the death of one AI Home Command Station provide full invincibility for the other one for an hour, and immediately trigger a CPA or something like that.

Kind of severe, though; if I had to guess I'd say this would basically immediately bump everyone down a difficulty-level (or more), which doesn't tend to lead to a Very Happy Forum