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

[RCIX]

To an extent, that's exactly the principle they're going for if memory serves. The only way to feasibly take every world should be with ultracheese or something like AI <= 3. However, it might be better to keep resource growth in pace with AI progress and then use other mechanics to let the AI outscale the player (reinforcement rates, goody unlocks, cross planet attacks, etc.)

Or, um, hiding some sort of command station sniper on every world and simultaneously killing them all. Not that I'd expect this crowd to be able to pull it off /s

[_K_]

you make the game's default AIP go up by 1 every 15 minutes like someone said

While i agree that playing on AIP timer close to 0 is kinda scummy, this change is extremely unlikely to happen. So i dont see a point to discuss the changes that rely heavily on it. (But yeah, then your point is quite valid).

If you remove or nerf Datacenters, it still won't change the behavior either.  The problem is not that people stay at the AIP floor, it's that people stay at the minimum value of AIP needed, because the advantage gained from doing AIP increasing activities isn't worth the disadvantage that comes from increasing AIP.

The difference is that the closer you are to the floor, the more difference those 20 AIP make. That's the point i am trying to hit with the DC suggestion. If you are at 180 AIP, 20 more doesnt sound as such a big deal, unlike when you are at 20 AIP and are about to double it.

a) make it REQUIRED like CSGs do, or
b) make AIP's downsides small compared to the benefit gained.

a) is uncool. There has been enough bitching about CSG's and i can see the reason why. Another mechanic when you are absolutely required to take planet X to win is not something we want.

b) in general is very difficult, because AIP's downsides vary greatly between difficulty levels. 20 AIP on 7/7 not a big deal, unlike on 10/10. That's why you see people taking 20+ planets in 7/7. The difference between 7/7 and 10/10 is exactly that - the downsides of AIP. If you lower them across the board, 7/7 will become way too easy.  The only way to work it out is to somehow boost 7/7, make 10/10 less sensitive to AIP changes, but compensate it with something else. I cant think of anything simple that would do it.

Not really sure, but I feel that the homeworld income needs to come down, but ideally without making the start of the game too slow.  Perhaps a large increase to starting resources?

Agreed. Homeworld has lots of bonus nodes AND human settlements, so economically its worth more than a few planets. Having it a fixed 5/5 nodes, or even 4/4 sounds reasonable.
If even a full cap sounds not enough for a quick start, we could have some caches similar to distribution nodes that cost no AIP.

[Kjara]

To an extent, that's exactly the principle they're going for if memory serves. The only way to feasibly take every world should be with ultracheese or something like AI <= 3. However, it might be better to keep resource growth in pace with AI progress and then use other mechanics to let the AI outscale the player (reinforcement rates, goody unlocks, cross planet attacks, etc.)

Or, um, hiding some sort of command station sniper on every world and simultaneously killing them all. Not that I'd expect this crowd to be able to pull it off /s

Sure, but if taking even the best possible planet (say 4+4 + gravdrill) still puts you further behind than not taking it even against a linear response (and the response at 9 is way more than linear), the optimal strategy becomes to take only the planets that the game requires you to take, with possibly some number of advanced research planets since the power increase from unlocking a new ship type generally at least seems worthwhile (it could be that we are being irrational here as well though).  Since taking a subpar planet hurts the player so much in the long term, the minor benefit gained from having a fab or two on it has no chance of incentivizing them into taking a planet that merely sets them back by 20% rather than 25%.

[Wingflier]

you make the game's default AIP go up by 1 every 15 minutes like someone said

While i agree that playing on AIP timer close to 0 is kinda scummy, this change is extremely unlikely to happen. So i dont see a point to discuss the changes that rely heavily on it. (But yeah, then your point is quite valid).

I think you may be misunderstanding me. By "default" I'm not suggesting we force players to use it, I'm simply suggesting that it becomes the default like 1 AIP per 30 minutes is right now.

That way, unless you manually change it, 1 per 15 is the default setting.

[_K_]

Thus, even sinking 18k knowledge into income, the player is still only growing at about half the rate of the ai response

Actually, you are comparing wrong things.
You should compare the growth of your income with the growth of your ongoing expenses. And the value you get as result is the time to rebuild.
Should it increase or decrease as the game progresses? The answer actually depends. If your defences are solid and you only need to resupply your fleet, then your economy balance usually grows. If your fleet gets wiped, or your defences get severely damaged, rebuilding should take longer than it does at 1 planet.
So, in my opinion, economy should grow slower than the total cost of your assets. But faster than the total costs of like 30% of your mobile fleet.

The counter to the AIP increase is the increase in your total strength. At high difficulties, this growth can't catch up with AIP growth. However, you get a few planets free of AIP thanks to the reducers, so when the AIP finally starts growing, you have already gained quite an advantage. But after that, every planet you take increases AI's strength more than yours. We are talking about wave and reinforcement strength though. AIHW strength doesnt grow as fast, and the whole point is to reach the moment you are strong enough with as little AIP as possible.

So, we get back to step 1 in the discussion. The point of every game is to reach a certain amount of fleet strength in as little AIP as possible. Since every planet costs roughtly the same AIP, you take the ones that increase your strength the most until its finally enough to take the AIHWs. And not a single planet more, as the 20 AIP of cost outweights any advantage that you could possibly pull out of it.

More graphs time. I admit i just like graphs and post them at every opportunity.

[chemical_art]

Should it increase or decrease as the game progresses? The answer actually depends. If your defences are solid and you only need to resupply your fleet, then your economy balance usually grows. If your fleet gets wiped, or your defences get severely damaged, i think you should be taking more time to rebuild them than at 1 planet.
So, in my opinion, economy should grow slower than the total cost of your assets.

Unless you are playing chokepoint maps, or well below your highest difficulty level, costs and rebuild times raise sharply faster as you rise AIP. The issue is just how fast they should scale, because right now, ANY increase of AIP is sharp enough to overcome economy compared to the econ of the player HW at AIP 10. Using AIP reducers doesn't change the core situation.

[Kjara]

Thus, even sinking 18k knowledge into income, the player is still only growing at about half the rate of the ai response

Actually, you are comparing wrong things.
You should compare the growth of your income with the growth of your ongoing expenses. The value you get as result is the time to rebuild.
Should it increase or decrease as the game progresses? The answer actually depends. If your defences are solid and you only need to resupply your fleet, then your economy balance usually grows. If your fleet gets wiped, or your defences get severely damaged, i think you should be taking more time to rebuild them than at 1 planet.
So, in my opinion, economy should grow slower than the total cost of your assets.

The counter to the AIP increase is the increase in your total strength. At high difficulties, this growth can't catch up with AIP growth. However, you get a few planets free of AIP thanks to the reducers, so when the AIP finally starts growing, you have already gained quite an advantage. But after that, every planet you take makes you weaker compared to the AI.

If you can successfully argue that your losses go down as aip goes up, I could see that argument.  However, I find that this is often not the case, since as you stated, the speed at which your forces grows is also smaller than the speed at which the AI forces grow.  Thus, for taking planets past where you can keep the AIP floored, you are facing higher proportional attrition costs, and lower proportial income.  I will admit that the new guard posts, and stuff like ion cannons if not handled properly do skew this slightly and there's a minimum that you can afford to run by the end of the game based on how hard it is to take the AI homeworlds, but this still argues that riding the floor as much as possible is optimal and having income scale poorly as you expand doesn't help with this issue.

[TechSY730]

Yea, there seems to be a point of AIP where taking almost any other planet (thus raising AIP) to increase your strength is overshadowed by the increase in AI response. The point of this thread is primarily about is that this point is (potentially) too low.
Over the course of the discussion, two points about this have come up, 1: "base" AI strength (aka, AI strength at AIP 10 and other similarly ultra-low AIP levels) and 2: the AI strength "slope" (how much stronger the AI becomes for each additional point of AIP).

The homeworld adjustment discussion is just tackling one side of this, the base AI strength (focusing on the end-game).

I'm still not sure about elegant solutions to the second point save for tweaking the equations we already have (messing with the coefficients mainly).

And yes, the issue of difficulty does play a huge role in this. In very high difficulty games, this "turning point" should be low, but maybe not as low as it is now. At 7/7, this "turning point" seems to be at a saner spot.

[chemical_art]

And yes, the issue of difficulty does play a huge role in this. In very high difficulty games, this "turning point" should be low, but maybe not as low as it is now. At 7/7, this "turning point" seems to be at a saner spot.

But regardless of the turning point, the fact remains if you can keep ultra-low AIP and strike at the enemy HW, regardless of difficulty, that overrides any and all other strategies. It isn't independent of difficulty (at least 7 and above) it is just that you don't have to exploit this min-max theory as much on lower difficulties.

Even if I played AI difficulty 5, if I could strike the AI HW at 50 AIP compared to 100 AIP, or at 100 compared to 150, etc, etc, I would do so. Period.

[Hearteater]

Optionally, we could make taking more planets increase the player's power so they can deal with the aip.  I contend past about 4-6 systems the player really doesn't get stronger (ignoring minor factions).  Get your mark 2s, a bunch of ars and then really, what else do you need a system for?  Resources?  Nope, time fixes that and by 6ish systems time isn't even that long.  Energy?  Nope, you can support it all.  Knowledge?  You've unlocked everything important and useful and you really get into the zone of severly diminshing returns on K.

Hopefully the mark 3/4 K changes (if they go through) will help.  But we could use a good usability pass un knowledge unlocks.  I think there are a lot that aren't used much at all.

[_K_]

Yeah, AI Difficulty is very tightly tied to AIP, so as the difficulty increases, higher AIP strategies suffer greatly, while ultralow-AIP strategy suffers the least. That's why by the time you reach 10/10 it ends up being the only viable strategy.

[TechSY730]

Yeah, AI Difficulty is very tightly tied to AIP, so as the difficulty increases, higher AIP strategies suffer greatly, while ultralow-AIP strategy suffers the least. That's why by the time you reach 10/10 it ends up being the only viable strategy.

For 10/10, that is fine. 10/10 is supposed to be absurd.

However, this is spilling into the difficulties where it not supposed to be absurd, like 9.

[TechSY730]

And yes, the issue of difficulty does play a huge role in this. In very high difficulty games, this "turning point" should be low, but maybe not as low as it is now. At 7/7, this "turning point" seems to be at a saner spot.

But regardless of the turning point, the fact remains if you can keep ultra-low AIP and strike at the enemy HW, regardless of difficulty, that overrides any and all other strategies. It isn't independent of difficulty (at least 7 and above) it is just that you don't have to exploit this min-max theory as much on lower difficulties.

Even if I played AI difficulty 5, if I could strike the AI HW at 50 AIP compared to 100 AIP, or at 100 compared to 150, etc, etc, I would do so. Period.

Optionally, we could make taking more planets increase the player's power so they can deal with the aip.  I contend past about 4-6 systems the player really doesn't get stronger (ignoring minor factions).  Get your mark 2s, a bunch of ars and then really, what else do you need a system for?  Resources?  Nope, time fixes that and by 6ish systems time isn't even that long.  Energy?  Nope, you can support it all.  Knowledge?  You've unlocked everything important and useful and you really get into the zone of severly diminshing returns on K.

Hopefully the mark 3/4 K changes (if they go through) will help.  But we could use a good usability pass un knowledge unlocks.  I think there are a lot that aren't used much at all.

That's part of the issue. Right now, at low AIPs, the AI is such a pushover you don't need all that much to win, thus not incentivizing going after planets to increase strength (and for higher difficulties, actually makes you weaker relatively pretty quickly). Although Kieth has stated this is fine for most of the game (if you choose to play this way), it doesn't seem right that the end-game falls to this too.

If you knew the AI HW was going to be at least X strong when facing them, and won't increase very much at all in strength in that HW until you pass the point where the HW would of been X strong anyways, and that X was strong enough that only a few planet's worth of unlocks would probably not be enough to cut-it, would you be so hesitant to take some extra planets for knowledge and/or capturables?

[chemical_art]

If you knew the AI HW was going to be at least X strong when facing them, and won't increase very much at all in strength in that HW until you pass the point where the HW would of been X strong anyways, and that X was strong enough that only a few planet's worth of unlocks would probably not be enough to cut-it, would you be so hesitant to take some extra planets for knowledge and/or capturables?

No, which is why I want static reserves. It is independent of AIP, so you don't feel penalized if you go higher then its equivalent AIP difficulty, but it hurts if you go lower. It is meant intentionally to be the inverse of AIP, where the ultra low is always best and any raises hurts.

[TechSY730]

If you knew the AI HW was going to be at least X strong when facing them, and won't increase very much at all in strength in that HW until you pass the point where the HW would of been X strong anyways, and that X was strong enough that only a few planet's worth of unlocks would probably not be enough to cut-it, would you be so hesitant to take some extra planets for knowledge and/or capturables?

No, which is why I want static reserves. It is independent of AIP, so you don't feel penalized if you go higher then its equivalent AIP difficulty, but it hurts if you go lower. It is meant intentionally to be the inverse of AIP, where the ultra low is always best and any raises hurts.

Alright, how about if the reserves were static, or had a clamped max as well as a min like I mentioned above?