Hunter Plot Questions

[Vyndicu]

How would you "encourage" AI to deploy a H/K? High AIP? Taking systems with a special force post in it? Turning on more superweapons?

I am just curious and want to try to not die against a H/K. I don't think in all of my time spent with trying for a fallen spire campaign final shard ever seen a H/K by the way of exo-waves. It was always spire shield bearer or siege tower or some other such "asteroid craft insert here".

I tried setting one AI to "Doom 10/10" with Alarmist/special force and fool around a bit still didn't see it. But then again I did not really commit a lot of time to it.

[Kahuna]

All I had to do was play for a couple of hours (in-game time) and a H/K appeared. I had both Hunter plots enabled and 4/10.

[Tridus]

How would you "encourage" AI to deploy a H/K? High AIP? Taking systems with a special force post in it? Turning on more superweapons?

I am just curious and want to try to not die against a H/K. I don't think in all of my time spent with trying for a fallen spire campaign final shard ever seen a H/K by the way of exo-waves. It was always spire shield bearer or siege tower or some other such "asteroid craft insert here".

I tried setting one AI to "Doom 10/10" with Alarmist/special force and fool around a bit still didn't see it. But then again I did not really commit a lot of time to it.

Turning up the suprerweapon intensity is one way. They can appear in FS exo wave, but there has to be enough budget for it. I've seen them even on difficulties below 7/7 in FS, but it was right near the end. On a really low FS intensity the waves are just too small and you'll likely never see one though (of course if you turn it up too far the waves just get crazy).

[keith.lamothe]

The hunter plot on 4 will generate a Special Forces H/K in an hour (from start, or after the previous one dies).

On 10 it will do similarly, but with a mkI, mkII, mkIII, mkIV, and mkV H/K

[chemical_art]

I've said this before, but I really, really don't like just how arbitrarily H/K's appear from the nether into SF forces, and why even in alpha I don't play with this plot anymore.

[keith.lamothe]

I've said this before, but I really, really don't like just how arbitrarily H/K's appear from the nether into SF forces, and why even in alpha I don't play with this plot anymore.

Pretty much everything in the SF came there from the nether.

[chemical_art]

I've said this before, but I really, really don't like just how arbitrarily H/K's appear from the nether into SF forces, and why even in alpha I don't play with this plot anymore.

Pretty much everything in the SF came there from the nether.

But SF aren't an AI plot, are they?

And if you pop SF posts, their numbers do decrease (right?)

[Aklyon]

I think its their maximum that decreases, not the literal ships.

[chemical_art]

I think its their maximum that decreases, not the literal ships.

Still is better then the current hunter plot.

[TechSY730]

Nope.
Special forces on non-allied (aka, AI) held planets give a bonus to SF, but otherwise, killing them does nothing but deny them a "stagig point"

I've suggested long ago (and never put on mantis...I should do that) that killing special forces guard posts should reduce SF cap somewhat. Buff the initial max if you must. I think the AIP on death is a reasonable enough cost to get this sort of benefit.

[keith.lamothe]

An SF post on a non-AI planet increases the max, but reducing the number of SF posts on non-AI planets does not decrease the max.  The max is based on AIP, Diff, and if the AI in question is a Special Forces Captain; possibly a few other things I'm forgetting.

In general if "ships from the nether" is a problem for you, then the whole game is a problem for you, because the AI doesn't have an economy in the sense you do.  I've gone to great lengths since the 3.x days to make sure it "pays" for each ship so that it doesn't get the same number of (for example) spire blade spawners as it does fighters, but all that is just relative costs, not absolute ones.  The origin of all those "resources" it's "spending" is "thin air"   And has always been so.

[chemical_art]

I think you are not understanding my frustration.

Or maybe, you don't care. I don't say this meanly, more in the manner of "that's the point"

I play with hybrids on sometimes. Why? Not because they add extra units for the sake of it. But because they add an extra, unique units that can be influenced (reduced by player actions).

I like waves, reinforcements, etc, because they are based on AIP, which is influenced by the player.

What I DON'T like are things not influenced at all by the player. This includes the hunter plot. Every X time Y is added. Period. Not "Buildpoints instead of being used normally are used to pay for X" or "In response to player response X is added" . No, it is "out of the blue, an H/K is added"

It is precisely because the AI doesn't "pay" in any way, at ALL, that I get so grumpy at the idea.

In my example, the nether means not that literally the unit appears, but in the sense the AI doesn't forsake anything to obtain the H/K's.

What I would find more interesting is that the AI devotes points in the SF to make the H/K's, rather then the H/K's merely be added to the current SF. In fact, the toggles (numbers for the intensity) could give the "efficiency" rate of the conversion, with 4/10 being a fairly even trade, less making the AI pay more relatively per H/K, and a higher intensity (higher number) meaning the AI gets mmore bang per H/K buck.

[chemical_art]

To illustrate my last point, imagine if the current beachheads plot had intensity.

Right now, if a beachhead is used, according to wiki, the AI Wave is half as strong.

Imagine, now, if the beachhead was half at strong at intensity 5/10. *

Imagine if beachhead waves were 1/3 as strong on intensity 4/10, 1/4 as strong on 3/10, 1/5 as strong on 3/10...*

And in reverse, AI beacheads were as strong as normal waves on 8/10, and went stronger from there?*

For me at least, beachheads would go from "no go" to "an interesting trade off".

*These numbers are illustrative only: Meaning AI intensity determines how much the AI "pays" to use this plot, from "very very much" to "not at all!"

[keith.lamothe]

I think you are not understanding my frustration.

Or maybe, you don't care. I don't say this meanly, more in the manner of "that's the point"

I do care, at least to an extent.  If a player (particularly one who has a history of enjoying the game) doesn't enjoy something, I want to know about it.  At the same time, the game isn't for everyone.  Even moreso, not every part of the game is for everyone.

I implemented Hunter from a direct request from a player (Faulty) for a plot that adds an H/K to the SF.  I fleshed it out somewhat from there so that we could have the scalar and a bit more "fun" (the guardians), but that was the design goal of the plot.

When I implemented Hybrids, the design goal was to add an opponent that's basically the exact opposite of the AI:
- instead of holding back its production capacity for other things, and not thowing stuff at you that hadn't been alerted or freed by some other specific means (CPA, etc), and generally not "playing to win" (in the sense where it would just FRD everything to your homeworld at the beginning of the game, Hybrids do their level best to translate everything they have into a win
- instead of having all its "production" off-map and untouchable, the hybrids are entirely on the map and thus can be completely eradicated

The main AI can't be either of those things, but some players wanted something like that, so there they are.  They aren't nearly as interesting as they could be (generally speaking they just wind up stymied by a huge chokepoint) but they do please some folks.

They very much do not please other folks who don't want the game going for their throat all the time, though   And that's fine.  They don't like Hybrids.  You don't like Hunter.  There's not necessarily a problem with that.

All that said, Hunter is new and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's automatically a-ok either.  But from what I'm hearing you have more of a philosophical difference with the intent behind them rather than an issue with how that particular philosophy was implemented.


On the variable-intensity thing: that might work for beachheads, though the main thing that plot needs is more granularity so it's not just "on=chokepoints win, off=chokepoints die horribly in flames and elephants".  For hunter I'm already using the intensity to control which units the SF gets, so while I could have it also apply a minus to the SF popcap (and thus its rate of growth, which is purely a function of unfilled cap) I think that would be counter to the intent of the original request for it.

[chemical_art]

I see Keith, I guess because I haven't seen the original request I ask this:

Is it "the AI adds H/Ks as part of the SF pool" or "the AI adds H/Ks in addition to the normal SF pool"

That is where I think the disconnect is, and similarly to the current "Shark A- Shark B" Split, there might want there to be a "Hunter A- Hunter B" split. One simply adds the H/Ks to current Sf pools, the other allows the AI to spend points to add H/K's within the current pool.

For me, the idea of the AI SF pool having more options to spend its buildpoints deviously is interesting, but simply buffing the SF, when I have no way to reduce it, is no fun.