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

[LordSloth]

If you want to incentivize higher AIP games, why not just make it harder to take out Data Centers?

Brainstorm A). Increase their health significantly, and grant regeneration, so that they survive long enough that patrols should have time to respond to a relatively small strikeforce.
Brainstorm B). Data Centers are protected by *multiple* guardians, above the normal difficulty cap. Difficulty 7: 2 guardians. Difficulty 8: 4 guardians. Difficulty 10: 6 guardians.
Brainstorm C). Half of the Special Forces "at rest" and not responding to a player incursion park on Data Centers that are within four hops of a player-owned or neutral system.  The other half park where they normally do, three systems out IIRC. All of these patrollers would respond as normal, it would just mean that you couldn't 'cloak' your way past a patrol or avoid 'important' systems until you got to the data center, you would *have* to agro the patrol and draw them off location, or face half the total strength. Falls apart considering how many data centers might be eligible.
Brainstorm D). Popping a Data Center releases a portion of the special forces patrol as threat.
Edit: Brainstorm E). Data Center Fort

[chemical_art]

As another hinted, throwing harder sticks wont in itself prevent the core of low aip games.

That is why the only idea i really like is the ai comm stations giving a massive increase to floor aip rathwr then normal aip. it specifically hurts only low aip.games

[keith.lamothe]

@LordSloth: I think Data Centers are just fine, honestly; making them harder to take out would not incentivize higher AIP games, it would either not be enough to change the fact that they would be taken down, or it would be so much as to effectively remove DCs from the picture, which would lead to even fewer planets being taken

As another hinted, throwing harder sticks wont in itself prevent the core of low aip games.

Sure, and I think it's appropriate that if you're serious you keep that AIP as low as you can, what I've been toying with here is making it so you can't stay quite that far under the radar while still building up to a force capable of genuinely threatening the AI's homeworlds.

That is why the only idea i really like is the ai comm stations giving a massive increase to floor aip rathwr then normal aip. it specifically hurts only low aip.games

I think that does help, yes, but honestly isn't it irrelevant what the HCS on-death effects are now?  It could be +10,000 AIP (which when you think about it wouldn't be inappropriate lore-wise) and it's not going to matter: the high-difficulty people are still double-killing these anyway.

So having the first one to die spawn some kind of boss that you have to kill before you can kill the other homeworld seems worth trying.

[chemical_art]

Yes,  it would have to work in tandem with a boss.

Which i dont think would be bad at all.

I've never liked how you can nuke both ai hw anyway

[keith.lamothe]

Yes,  it would have to work in tandem with a boss.

Which i dont think would be bad at all.

I've never liked how you can nuke both ai hw anyway

So I'm thinking maybe of making the Avenger plot work like that boss (just give the Avenger the CSG effect the mothership has), so people can test this idea before we try it in the "always-on" game.

Might need another surprise or two with the avenger to make it so you don't just murder it immediately too

Vicious players.

[TechSY730]

Mothership or similar on HW death (at the same or other HW?) would be awesome.

As mentioned though, this would sort of start "infringing" on the avenger's territory...

[TechSY730]

Is the idea that if taking out the HW has a more natural way to increase "barrier to destroy and survive", then the rest of the game does not have to be quite as harsh about making such a "barrier to survive"?

[chemical_art]

I hope so. right now it is that if normal attacks dont kill me, eventyually ill siege the ai hw down the ai hw defensively feels unique, but has no offensive threat. i want that threat.to shift from mid game stalemates to late game deaths

[keith.lamothe]

Mothership or similar on HW death (at the same or other HW?) would be awesome.

As mentioned though, this would sort of start "infringing" on the avenger's territory...

I think the solution to that infringement would be simple: make the boss a lot harder if the Avenger plot is on, and update its description (and perhaps name) to reflect that.

Is the idea that if taking out the HW has a more natural way to increase "barrier to destroy and survive", then the rest of the game does not have to be quite as harsh about making such a "barrier to survive"?

Basically, yes.  Low-AIP is totally fine with us for most of the game.  The game hammers home the concept of keeping-it-low pretty heavily.  But if actually winning means you have to stand up a bit at the end then the AI doesn't have to be tuned to kill people who are still hiding in the jungle.

[Vyndicu]

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

I can already see a sorta of one or two exploits with this mechanic.

If I decide to start the exo-galactic beacon for fallen spire and sit back. If the H/K with CSG spawn guess what? It has to content with a full blown on fallen spire fleet + the NPC fallen spire so it would be almost comical and trivial to deal with. But I feel it would hurt those without super weapon enable far too much.

Although a core shield to burn through would be bit better than a H/K or mothership with CSG on.

[Toranth]

Yes,  it would have to work in tandem with a boss.

Which i dont think would be bad at all.

I've never liked how you can nuke both ai hw anyway

So I'm thinking maybe of making the Avenger plot work like that boss (just give the Avenger the CSG effect the mothership has), so people can test this idea before we try it in the "always-on" game.

Might need another surprise or two with the avenger to make it so you don't just murder it immediately too

Vicious players.

Rather than just making the Mothership-Avenger Always-On, what if there was a spawn of a new Backup-CSG network that needed to be dealt with?  Maybe add the instant-CPA that you mentioned earlier on HW 1's destruction, too, to threaten the player.

How will no-CSG games be handled this way, anyway?

[keith.lamothe]

I can already see a sorta of one or two exploits with this mechanic.

If I decide to start the exo-galactic beacon for fallen spire and sit back. If the H/K with CSG spawn guess what? It has to content with a full blown on fallen spire fleet + the NPC fallen spire so it would be almost comical and trivial to deal with. But I feel it would hurt those without super weapon enable far too much.

If you get to the end of the fallen spire campaign then you've already passed faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar outside the realm of low AIP and I totally don't care that it's trivialized by the massive Spire fleet that you just dropped on its head

FWIW, the CSG-boss spawned by one homeworld's death would be automatically killed by the end-of-FS event mechanic within a few seconds of spawning, the same as it auto-wrecks the normal CSG mechanic or any motherships out there.

Rather than just making the Mothership-Avenger Always-On, what if there was a spawn of a new Backup-CSG network that needed to be dealt with?

Because if someone doesn't have CSGs on I don't want them in the game.  Also, that would be less interesting (imo) than something that will kill you if you don't kill it.

Maybe add the instant-CPA that you mentioned earlier on HW 1's destruction, too, to threaten the player.

Sure, something like that could work as part of it, so it's not just the one guy.

How will no-CSG games be handled this way, anyway?

No difference, same as how Motherships still function (in their CSG capacity) if that option is off.

[Toranth]

Rather than just making the Mothership-Avenger Always-On, what if there was a spawn of a new Backup-CSG network that needed to be dealt with?

Because if someone doesn't have CSGs on I don't want them in the game.  Also, that would be less interesting (imo) than something that will kill you if you don't kill it.
<snip>

How will no-CSG games be handled this way, anyway?

No difference, same as how Motherships still function (in their CSG capacity) if that option is off.

Not liking this.  Basically, I'm hearing "Even though Avenger is an optional plot and can be turned off, we're turning it on all the time now.  No matter what you choose." combined with "Even though CSGs are optional and can be turned off, we're turning them back on for you.  No matter what you choose."
Avengers are an explicit option.  CSGs are an explicit option.  Fallen Spire is an explicit option.  But this is base game?

I also don't really see what this will do to prevent playing a low AIP game, not capturing Fabs or FacIVs, and doing a warhead-heavy double-neuter kill at the very end.  This solution doesn't seem address the problem of "AIP is too costly to take, so everyone avoids it" - it's more a Band-aid on the symptom of "The AI is too asleep at the endgame".

[LordSloth]

Is the idea that if taking out the HW has a more natural way to increase "barrier to destroy and survive", then the rest of the game does not have to be quite as harsh about making such a "barrier to survive"? Basically, yes.  Low-AIP is totally fine with us for most of the game.  The game hammers home the concept of keeping-it-low pretty heavily.  But if actually winning means you have to stand up a bit at the end then the AI doesn't have to be tuned to kill people who are still hiding in the jungle.

I see. So it isn't an over the course of the game sort of thing. Would boosting the core (but not the home) worlds and introducing a response to irritating them be sufficient? Perhaps an uncontroversial starting point would be something as simple as boosting the Warhead Interceptor and Orbital Mass Driver by more defensively placing them and buffing the DPS of the OMD up to the level of a MKV Anti-Starship Arachnid but with a firing rate of 15 instead of 5, since they still seed elsewhere. If that sounds good I could take a look at the actual numbers and try to make a less numerically arbitrary suggestion.

[TechSY730]

Woa, did you know the posters have the right to lock their own threads? Because I sure didn't.


Anyways,

@Toranth
I think the idea then is that if the end-game can be made to naturally be a sufficient obstical even at ultra low AIP, then we can reduce how punishing AIP is for the rest of the game without fearing that the end-game will become too easy. Plus, it would give players a motivation to seek out capturables even when playing a more minimal style.

Maybe an epic "boss"as part of the base game isn't it, IDK.
There may be sufficient tools the engine has currently to do this, just values (base strength, strength over AIP, strength over human presence, etc.) need to be tweaked.