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

[chemical_art]

It's also tied to what planets are alerted.
Anyways, I think the idea is the reinforcements, on a strong average, regenerate much slower than the strategic reserve at the kinds of AIP we are targetting (~200).
So yes, the first time you assault the HW, fighting it at AIP 200 will be harder than at AIP 40 (assuming an equal sized attack force), because the reinforcements have had time to build up. But on subsequent assualts after rebuilding, the reinforcements haven't had time to build back up like the strategic reserve has. Thus, on the second and subsequent assualts, the difficulty from the reinforcements is only slightly higher at AIP 200 than AIP 40, while strategic reserve remains the same. The hope is that this slight difficulty can be outweighed by the advantage of being able to rebuild faster due to you taking more stuff (thus, more AIP), so that both reinforcements AND strategic reserve have had less time to rebuild. (This is where the economy and capturable balance enters the equation)

From experience this is true.

It is true over time reinforcements on HW increase with AIP. But if they are not alerted, they are exponentially slower then with strategic reserves. In addition, you can even drain away those reinforcements like any other AI world, so even entrenched worlds can be tackled with tactics.

The result is that the change of difficulty in actually attacking AI HW  doesn't scale much as AIP increases, so you don't feel "constrained" by it.

[Diazo]

My liking things includes the harvester/resource changes. Because I do favor the low-aip strategy, harvester upgrades are not mandatory for my games. This change would signficantly reduce the gap between Mk I and III harvesters and make them less 'powerful'.

D.

I guess the question of whether only the knowledge costs needs adjustment, the harvester stats need adjustment, or some of both depends on how much you feel the relative OPness the difference between Mk. III and Mk. I vs the knowledge cost per increase in harvester stats.

Personally, I think more of the issue is the knowledge cost, but the Mk. I vs Mk. III disparity may need to be addressed as well (Like, IMO, maybe about 35% due to the Mk. I to Mk. III gain OPness, 65% due to the knowledge efficiency OPness)

I'm actually of the opinion that Mk III harvesters are OP regardless.

It's rough because I have not done the math, but I treat a game with Mk III harvesters unlocked as me having twice the resources I would have otherwise.  I get away with not unlocking them because of my skill level and keeping to the low-AIP strategy.

If for any reason (minor faction, map layout, etc.) I will not be playing a low AIP game? Both harvesters Mark III are unlocked by the 2 second gametime mark. That's how critical I see them, 9K of the 13K knowledge I get from my single homeworld is spent on harvesters if I decide that game needs them.

If their knowledge cost gets boosted? Fine, I'm still unlocking them. As they currently are, they would have to get boosted to 16 or 18K knowledge before I considered not unlocking them in a non-low-AIP game.

Double the resources is equal to double the number of ships I can build over the course of the game, that's how powerful harvesters as they currently stand are.

D.

[TechSY730]

I'm actually of the opinion that Mk III harvesters are OP regardless.

I agree with this. My first point was that this isn't the only thing, knowledge efficiency is also part of it. But I do agree that the Mk. III (and to a lesser extent Mk. II) need to be toned down some, along with a knowledge efficiency nerf (which could just happen naturally if the K costs are unchanged but the higher marks receive a stat nerf).
My second point is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Both "once built" stats AND knowledge costs could change to find a better balance.

[Vyndicu]

And a couple other things I'm thinking about but am considerably more hesitant about:
6) Quarter the effectiveness and the K-cost of the harvester upgrades (so you still get the same boost per K, but it "maxes out" much lower).
7) Double the number of metal and crystal spots seeded by mapgen on non-homeworld planets (with some provision for old saves).

If you do those changes then spire habitation will suddenly look much more attractive from an economical long term investment. I totally understand why player economical might be OP for some players including myself. Fallen Spire campaign economical is pretty powerful just 4 solar systems minimum for *roughly* 1200 of each metal and crystal income. So it might not affect me much which is intend I guess; so I am more interested to hear from those who play without fallen campaign.

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, FS changes the econ game in several key respects; I'm not really trying to affect FS at all with these changes.  In FS, once you've got a few cities, if you want more m+c you can just take more planets and if the AI doesn't like it, it can pound sand.

[Vyndicu]

It will certainly change the early game before you get your first shard fallen spire city hub and still have to sink lot of resource/time into it before you see any return on your investments.

Let me see first you have to make survey and spend time finding stuff then the first shard 300k M + C. Once done you got the refuge outpost + first 4 fallen spire frigate. Then the spire city hub 2 million M + C then reactor/habitation on top of that.

I don't recall some of the M + C cost for some stuff. So I would be careful about hurting early game FS.

[Wingflier]

Yea, FS changes the econ game in several key respects; I'm not really trying to affect FS at all with these changes.  In FS, once you've got a few cities, if you want more m+c you can just take more planets and if the AI doesn't like it, it can pound sand.

In other news, a small-time Indie developer died last night from a neck injury. There is still much speculation over the "accident", but initial reports seem to suggest his computer launching a disk from the CD-tray at such speeds that it instantly decapitated him.

The computer manufacturer claims no responsibility for the incident.

[Cyborg]

Stop trying to nerf econ. If you have that much resources, you're sitting around too much. Go spend it. If all you're doing is doing Mark 1/2 of everything, that's your play style.


hint: turn on the trader, enable golems, fallen spire,go starships...

[keith.lamothe]

(posting formula before seeing what else was said since I last checked)


Ok, you can get this from your LogicLog_AIMechanic_StrategicReserve.txt file if you have Advanced Logging on, but the formula for the max size of the strategic reserve for a specific AI player is, in terms of the "relative strength" metric (where 1 relative strength is roughly 1 mkI Fighter on high-caps) :

Code: [Select]

MaxStrategicReserveStrength = 19.8 * AIP * TotalSpecialDifficultyModifier
TotalSpecialDifficultyModifier is used in a lot of contexts, and is:

Code: [Select]

TotalSpecialDifficultyModifier = TotalPlayerRoleCausedDifficultyModifier * difficultyMultiplier * handicapMultiplier
TotalPlayerRoleCausedDifficultyModifier is basically just the human homeworld count (or "normal" human player count, if that's higher) ; it used to factor in champion count but no longer does.  So for most of you this is 1.

handicapMultiplier is just the handicap set for that AI in the lobby.  So for most of you this is 1.

difficultyMultiplier is based on the highest AIDiff in the game (since TotalSpecialDifficultyModifier is often used in contexts where there's no particular associated AI player), and is:
if Diff < 7, then Diff *0.15
else if Diff < 8, then Diff = 1 + (Diff-7)/2
else if Diff < 9, then Diff = 1.5 + (Diff-8)*1.5
else if Diff < 10, then Diff = 3 + (Diff-9)*3

So:
For Diff 7 this is 1
For Diff 7.6 this is 1.3
For Diff 8 this is 1.5
For Diff 8.6 this is 2.4
For Diff 9 this is 3
For Diff 9.6 this is 4.8
For Diff 10 this is 6


So on Diff 7.6 on a single-HW game with no handicaps, a static 200-AIP intensity for strategic reserve translates to 19.8 * 200 * 1.3 = 5148 relative strength.  So about 5 caps of MkV fleet ships.

On Diff 8.6 it would be 19.8 * 200 * 2.4 = 9504, or between 9 and 10 caps of MkV fleet ships.

And so on, until you reach paintown

[keith.lamothe]

Stop trying to nerf econ. If you have that much resources, you're sitting around too much. Go spend it. If all you're doing is doing Mark 1/2 of everything, that's your play style.

We'll probably just do the Lazy-AI toggle thing first before messing with the harvesters.  It's possible the other changes will motivate a bit more spending, for one thing.

[Faulty Logic]

And so on, until you reach paintown 

"I heard you just moved into paintown. Here's a housewarming gift of 23 caps of core ships!"

Deploying warheads...

[Wingflier]

Stop trying to nerf econ. If you have that much resources, you're sitting around too much. Go spend it. If all you're doing is doing Mark 1/2 of everything, that's your play style.

If you could win the game with MKI/II of everything on 9/9, and still have full resources, that would still be a balance problem.

Don't think you can, but in my experience I have plenty left over even after building everything possible with 0 knowledge on higher difficulties. I usually try to reactivate Golems at that point, but once you get 3 of those it just gets gratuitous

[keith.lamothe]

And so on, until you reach paintown 

"I heard you just moved into paintown. Here's a housewarming gift of 23 caps of core ships!"

Deploying warheads...

That's what I was afraid of.

At least, if it goes for mkV ships you can't just nuke all of them (and as it is you probably couldn't anyway since it won't push the population much over 4000 at once), but I see many, many lightning warheads in the future.

But at least it could serve as a speed bump so that the AIP-floor increase from the core guard posts could result in a counterattack you can't handle

Yep, couldn't handle that counteratt... oh, wait.  More warheads.  Joy.

[TechSY730]

And so on, until you reach paintown 

"I heard you just moved into paintown. Here's a housewarming gift of 23 caps of core ships!"

Deploying warheads...

That's what I was afraid of.

At least, if it goes for mkV ships you can't just nuke all of them (and as it is you probably couldn't anyway since it won't push the population much over 4000 at once), but I see many, many lightning warheads in the future.

But at least it could serve as a speed bump so that the AIP-floor increase from the core guard posts could result in a counterattack you can't handle

Yep, couldn't handle that counteratt... oh, wait.  More warheads.  Joy.

One of the reasons why I wanted strategic reserve to be able to grow some in strength, probably to a cap, once AIP goes above the min threshold. Though given that very little of what the strategic reserve can shrug off warheads, and SR strength is not allowed to grow unbounded as AIP grows unbounded, it may not help.

Then again, this could just be a sign that warheads are OP in very late-game.

[Cyborg]

Stop trying to nerf econ. If you have that much resources, you're sitting around too much. Go spend it. If all you're doing is doing Mark 1/2 of everything, that's your play style.

If you could win the game with MKI/II of everything on 9/9, and still have full resources, that would still be a balance problem.

Don't think you can, but in my experience I have plenty left over even after building everything possible with 0 knowledge on higher difficulties. I usually try to reactivate Golems at that point, but once you get 3 of those it just gets gratuitous

I would love to have this excess resource problem you all have. Granted it's not as bad as it used to be, but I'm not sitting on max resources, ever. It just doesn't happen.