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

[Faulty Logic]

"Truly static" means constant, no scaling at all.

So once you get up to a set strength, you can pop the DCs at your leisure. But you wouldn't be able to pop one until you got a few planet captures done.

I don't really care between adding more DCs and increasing the effectiveness on each one.

I still don't like like the idea of them attacking at all, to be clear, and would appreciate that particular behaviour on a different control toggle.

[_K_]

I almost feel like we should split this thread into 2 - one for DC discussion, the other for economy discussion.

So once you get up to a set strength, you can pop the DCs at your leisure. But you wouldn't be able to pop one until you got a few planet captures done.

So its basically like it currently is, except you need to survive a period of non-zero AIP and a CPA. Since you get a permanent reduction, those things still are just a temporary problem which end up giving you a permanent advantage. Those things dont chnge the flow of the game, they just add a small additional step in it.


Speaking of economy, i just want to point out that doubling the node counts on normal planets is the same as halving them on HW and then doubling their income. Harvesters often work as a distraction for AI ships, they also seem to serve as places where AI guard posts are placed. I dont see a reason why we'd want to change their counts when there is another option that achieves exactly the same.

[Diazo]

Just want to point out that data centers will be next to useless in "normal" AIP games if they're nerfed for low AIP games.

How would the usefulness of their AIP reduction be diminished by the counter attack?  Unless it actually kills you or starts a death spiral, it probably doesn't have any long term effect on the game.

@Toranth: good point on the AI types that get extra DCs, some accommodation would need to be made for those, but it's not too hard to accomplish.

Diazo seemed to be implying Data Centers should be less effective at AIP reduction

As a matter of fact, I'd be okay with Data Centers being less effective.

My position is not actually as extreme as my last post would indicated, but because everything is tied to AIP they are too much power concentrated in one structure.

I feel their is simply too large a gap between games where you deep raid for DCs and those you don't. We are talking a different of 60 AIP here.

For a more reasonable suggestion that reduces their effectiveness, maybe have then reduce AIP by 20 but increase the AIP Floor by 10?

D.

[chemical_art]

So its basically like it currently is, except you need to survive a period of non-zero AIP and a CPA. Since you get a permanent reduction, those things still are just a temporary problem which end up giving you a permanent advantage. Those things dont chnge the flow of the game, they just add a small additional step in it.

The idea is that the waves sent will be of such magnitude that they will be deadly for a single HW. Perhaps, though, their formations should be made so they are more deadly to single planet defenses. (arty golems anyone?)


Speaking of economy, i just want to point out that doubling the node counts on normal planets is the same as halving them on HW and then doubling their income. Harvesters often work as a distraction for AI ships, they also seem to serve as places where AI guard posts are placed. I dont see a reason why we'd want to change their counts when there is another option that achieves exactly the same.

I don't think these values are the same. If you halve HW income, you make the early game slower early on. As for the number of guardposts, that is independent automatically. On lower difficulties the AI already doesn't put a guardpost on every asteroid, and if the number of asteroids is doubled the number of GP won't. Well, maybe if you play something hard like 9+ maybe Keith will add in more, but unless specifically programmed too the number of GP won't increase.

[_K_]

I don't think these values are the same. If you halve HW income, you make the early game slower early on.

So you are saying that having 12 nodes each generating 20 resource is not the same as 6 nodes with each generating 40 resource? Uh... okay.

[Diazo]

Actually, how do guard posts seed after the last change that made they spawn less on lower difficulties?

Previously it's been every resource node has a guard post, would this lead to more resource nodes with no guard posts?

D.

[keith.lamothe]

On the guard post thing: the count of guard posts on a planet is determined independently of the number of resource spots on that planet.  Where they become related is when mapgen gets around to place each guard post.  But it's going to always place the number it already decided, no more, no less.

Speaking of economy, i just want to point out that doubling the node counts on normal planets is the same as halving them on HW and then doubling their income.

This is true, I believe.  And a much simpler change   Will keep that in mind if we actually change these.  Though since I'd probably be going for more of a 75% increase in resource spot count the numbers will be a bit different.

[Winge]

On the guard post thing: the count of guard posts on a planet is not determined independently of the number of resource spots on that planet.  Where they become related is when mapgen gets around to place each guard post.  But it's going to always place the number it already decided, no more, no less.

Erm...do you mean that guard posts are determined independently, and only their placement is based on resource spots?  The double-negative is throwing me off.

[keith.lamothe]

On the guard post thing: the count of guard posts on a planet is not determined independently of the number of resource spots on that planet.  Where they become related is when mapgen gets around to place each guard post.  But it's going to always place the number it already decided, no more, no less.

Erm...do you mean that guard posts are determined independently, and only their placement is based on resource spots?  The double-negative is throwing me off.

Sorry, there was a stray "not" in there.

Kinda like the stray ! marks in the code sometimes.  Excellent at making the computer do the precise opposite of what I intended.

And yes, you're correct in your guess of what I meant

[chemical_art]

I don't think these values are the same. If you halve HW income, you make the early game slower early on.

So you are saying that having 12 nodes each generating 20 resource is not the same as 6 nodes with each generating 40 resource? Uh... okay.

Ah, I misunderstood, I had got mixed up that you meant across the board instead of something else.

[keith.lamothe]

Rather than have DCs trigger counter-CPAs, I've been considering (all this only on if the Lazy toggle is off) :

1) whenever an AI command station (normal, not home) dies, it checks the distance of that planet to the nearest human home command station and to the nearest ai home command station
2) if distance-to-human is less than or equal to distance-to-ai, then nothing extra happens
3) else, trigger a 30-second-countdown counter-CPA based not on AIP but on proximity to the AI command station, capping out at as-if-AIP-were-300 if you take out a command station directly adjacent to an AI HW.  For the other planets perhaps it's 300-(300*(distance-to-ai/distance-to-human)), so if distance to AI is 2 and distance to human is 8, the counter-CPA would be as if it were a normal CPA at 225 AIP.

Basically just playing off the ideas some have had about making more of an obvious gradation when moving closer to the AI HWs.  Though I suspect this new idea will not be popular

[chemical_art]

Rather than have DCs trigger counter-CPAs, I've been considering (all this only on if the Lazy toggle is off) :

1) whenever an AI command station (normal, not home) dies, it checks the distance of that planet to the nearest human home command station and to the nearest ai home command station
2) if distance-to-human is less than or equal to distance-to-ai, then nothing extra happens
3) else, trigger a 30-second-countdown counter-CPA based not on AIP but on proximity to the AI command station, capping out at as-if-AIP-were-300 if you take out a command station directly adjacent to an AI HW.  For the other planets perhaps it's 300-(300*(distance-to-ai/distance-to-human)), so if distance to AI is 2 and distance to human is 8, the counter-CPA would be as if it were a normal CPA at 225 AIP.

Basically just playing off the ideas some have had about making more of an obvious gradation when moving closer to the AI HWs.  Though I suspect this new idea will not be popular

As long as they were truly CPA's, so the attacks came from already existing ships, I wouldn't mind that much.

[Cinth]

Hrmmmm....
I wonder how many CS you would need to pop in order to get the CPAs to run out of ships

[Hearteater]

On Economy
Economy changes primarily affect how the game feels to play.  Going too high makes your only limiting factor build time of units which makes economy totally irrelevant, but beyond that, I think we want an economy strong enough that waiting is reduced.  There is probably no reason for refleeting to take more than 5 minutes with no Harvester upgrades.  That's ignoring static defenses and starships, so just fleet ships.

However, I think static defenses should probably have a m+c increase.  Slow fleet rebuilds prevent the game from advancing and eat time.  Slow defensive rebuilds can be covered by a fleet (although obviously weaker) but also, if you know the AI can't counter-attack, you can carry out offensive actions during a static defense rebuild.

On Data Center
Raiding these is an intersting part of the game.  I'd hate to see them go away.  I wouldn't mind them getting harder to raid though.  Preferrably through interesting defenses rather than just x10 health.

As for how they enable low AIP game play, I think this might be fixed by changing something else to ignore negative AIP.  Right now the AI gets unlocks based on AIP gained, and ignores negative AIP.  What if CPAs ignored negative AIP?  You might be at floor, but those CPAs are still going to hurt.

[keith.lamothe]

As long as they were truly CPA's, so the attacks came from already existing ships, I wouldn't mind that much.

Presumably it would use the normal CPA logic: pulls half the target amount from the strategic reserve, then pulls from barracks/guard-ships/etc of the target tech level, then it pulls from other tech levels, and if it's totally out it pulls the rest from the strategic reserve (and if that runs out, it just sends an understrength CPA).

So I guess you could put a dent in the strategic reserve just before a HW assualt with this, though you'd be paying a lot of AIP to do it.

Hrmmmm....
I wonder how many CS you would need to pop in order to get the CPAs to run out of ships

I'm sure you'd find out.