New Carriers EDIT:, salvage and stuff (rant)

[Kahuna]

either forgetting its there or not wanting to use my main blob of fighter/bomber/missilefrigates/starships

Well you should be punished for that IMO.

Punished by watching the AI reinforce all the systems you'd been cleaning?  Yes.
Punished by having the AI overrun your underdefended systems?  Yes.
Punished by being forced to twiddle your thumbs for an hour because you can't do anything?  No.

Unlock Mark III Harvesters and capture (more) planets with 6 or more resource asteroids?

Distribution Nodes and Mark >= II Command Stations help too.

Though I admit. Rebuilding Starships takes too long. That's because they cost too much Metal. And that's why there's no point in unlocking Mark IIIs.

[Aklyon]

 If they cost so much metal, wouldn't you be able to increase the m/s (not the total amount) they need to build and thus speed up the build time? (or just throw engis at them, I suppose)

[chemical_art]

It just may be because I am getting older and my overall game playing time is shrinking, but without salvage I wouldn't recommend this game. It simply drags on too long.

But, for the record, if 10/10 is too easy, buff that, and not nerf the rest of the game because a select few find the game too easy. I find the game ok at 8/8, and I've been playing since pre 4.0. I do remember someone else saying, however, that 10/10 no longer even presents the illusion of winning (when it once did), so your mileage will vary about the game state right now.

[Kahuna]

But, for the record, if 10/10 is too easy, buff that, and not nerf the rest of the game because a select few find the game too easy.

This is not about the game being too easy.
This is about the game being a mess unbalanced?.

[chemical_art]

This is about the game being a mess unbalanced?.

That occurred long before these new carriers, so it is best to address the issue directly. Fixing carriers, or even salvage, will not fix this (alone).

[Fleet Unity]

It just may be because I am getting older and my overall game playing time is shrinking, but without salvage I wouldn't recommend this game. It simply drags on too long.

But, for the record, if 10/10 is too easy, buff that, and not nerf the rest of the game because a select few find the game too easy. I find the game ok at 8/8, and I've been playing since pre 4.0. I do remember someone else saying, however, that 10/10 no longer even presents the illusion of winning (when it once did), so your mileage will vary about the game state right now.

I agree if you buff the rest of the game to be too hard because only a few think it is too easy then it could scare off new players or get others more frustrated with the game I have never tried difficulty 9 or 10 yet but this is because I think the game is fun on difficulty 7. 

[Toranth]

On AI Starships:

- Too many?  Are you still winning?  SEND MOAR STARSHIPS! ... oh, not what you wanted, ok.  Anyway, I can maybe halve these, but it's not going to help the problem of the game feeling too easy.

Glad to hear something is going to be done about the Starship Hordes.  This should also do a good deal towards toning down the Salvage bonuses.  Right now, it seems like 2/3 of the Salvage from each wave comes from the starships, not the fleetships.  Heaven knows what resource levels a Starship Commander would be giving.

I also like the idea of scaled efficiency.  Fleetships give full drop, starships give 25%, Golems give 10% or less (or whatever numbers).
I would request that this apply to the AI's salvage as well.  Right now, losing a Mercenary Enclave, even at 200 AIP, is an instant Level 2 (double size) Reprisal Wave.
Although that does reduce the input the Player gets back to rebuild said Merc Enclave... Hmm.

[chemical_art]

I agree if you buff the rest of the game to be too hard because only a few think it is too easy then it could scare off new players or get others more frustrated with the game I have never tried difficulty 9 or 10 yet but this is because I think the game is fun on difficulty 7.

I agree with your views. I think at 7, as long as you get the message "don't take every planet, but only those you need"  and "I understand on an intermediate level basic tactics" you should be able to win the game. Superweapons or not, etc. That is what I experienced in the 3.x days, and I really think that should be the standard.

[Histidine]

Idea from someone who has never played a game with salvage yet:

Make player salvage based on player losses, not AI ones. On one side, this helps you recover if you get badly hurt. On the other hand, this removes the issue of the AI basically sending you free distribution nodes.

On the other hand, this also limits the effectiveness of the idea I had for making AI homeworld attacks more interesting, which is to make losses on the AI homeworld give super duper salvage. So if you screw up and get fleetwiped on the homeworld, the AI is gonna exact bloody revenge on you. But if you survive that, the resulting salvage will let you refleet faster for another go.

[TechSY730]

Looking at the salvage nerf coming up, and I feel maybe it is a bit too much of a nerf, especially given that most command stations only have an efficiency rate of like 10%.

Don't have hard numbers to back this up though...

[keith.lamothe]

Looking at the salvage nerf coming up, and I feel maybe it is a bit too much of a nerf, especially given that most command stations only have an efficiency rate of like 10%.

Don't have hard numbers to back this up though...

Folks have taken the opportunity to tank with their homeworld to score the 50% efficiency.  Which tends to make things more exciting, I think

That said, if you or anyone else wants to suggest different math, that's fine with me.

I went with what I described earlier, on a per-unit basis:
- the first 1000 metal is treated as before
- the next 9,000 metal after that is divided by 2.5
- the next 90,000 metal after that is divided by 5
- the next 900,000 metal after that is divided by 7.5
- the next 9,000,000 metal after that is divided by 10

It keeps going, but in practice outside the GCS you won't see effective costs higher than 10 million, on things that might possibly be scrapped.

Anyway, I could change it to adding 2 to the divisor each time instead of 2.5, this was just a first guess.

Overall you're still going to see a ton of extra metal from large attacks.

[chemical_art]

Overall you're still going to see a ton of extra metal from large attacks.

And the AI benefits more, as they have had their efficency rate bump up greatly, and they face no inefficencies. (I don't care how you justify it. It is what it is, and the numbers are depressing for a casual player. When the AI can benefit 10x as much as a player...a player would rather the "feature" be disabled)

*shrug*


These wild changes are why I hardly play AI Wars much anymore. Don't have time for it. I once did, but no longer.

*shrug*

Then again, the few ruin the fun of the many. That is nothing new

*shrug*

I regret when I said earlier that this feature cannot be optional. I rather it was now.

[keith.lamothe]

ess.

Overall you're still going to see a ton of extra metal from large attacks.

And the AI benefits more, as they have had their efficency rate bump up greatly, and they face no inefficencies.

It's a new feature.  The human side and the AI side are different mechanics.  Is it even remotely surprising that two different mechanics would need different balance adjustments?

Are the reprisal waves already doing their job?  If so I don't have to buff them.

These wild changes are why I hardly play AI Wars much anymore. Don't have time for it. I once did, but no longer.

It's our standard practice to do this sort of "binary search" approach to balance changes for new features.  Double it or halve it, etc.  In cases where the feedback indicates it's extremely off, even more than that.

For longer-standing features we usually stick with +/- 10% or 20%, unless a more drastic changes seems indicated.

Anyway, given the way you put things I don't see that there's any course of action available to me which will change how you feel.

If you think a more moderate shift would be better I'm happy to listen.  If it all just makes you go "*shrug*", then, and I ask this honestly, what goal do you seek to accomplish?

[chemical_art]

If you think a more moderate shift would be better I'm happy to listen.  If it all just makes you go "*shrug*", then, and I ask this honestly, what goal do you seek to accomplish?

I think the best thing would not create a complicated series of "If value is X, then it is Y efficient"

I think that is where my frustration comes from.

I have recently started looking at AI Wars from a "could I understand this, reasonably, if I never played it before?" mindset. And back in the "ye old days" (Which, by the way, we remember as very chaotic) There was no mechanic that had 5 variables. It was binary. Yes, or no.

I think in regard to salvage we need a similar approach. For example, salvage generates a flat 20% across the board, modified by command station. Or something. I think the command station should be the extent of the variable. Include more then that, and you reek of too much math to be fun. I like math, but not in my games. They need to be clearly defined. These changes make salvage way too messy, to the point I'd rather not have them.

[keith.lamothe]

I think the best thing would not create a complicated series of "If value is X, then it is Y efficient"

I think that is where my frustration comes from.

I have recently started looking at AI Wars from a "could I understand this, reasonably, if I never played it before?" mindset. And back in the "ye old days" (Which, by the way, we remember as very chaotic) There was no mechanic that had 5 variables. It was binary. Yes, or no.

I think in regard to salvage we need a similar approach. For example, salvage generates a flat 20% across the board, modified by command station. Or something. I think the command station should be the extent of the variable. Include more then that, and you reek of too much math to be fun. I like math, but not in my games. They need to be clearly defined. These changes make salvage way too messy, to the point I'd rather not have them.

Avoiding undue complexity is a fair point, but there are two reasons I think the complexity is helpful on the one hand and not harmful on the other:

1) It's helpful in that it allows salvage values to be toned down on superweapon-heavy games (where you're salvaging tons of units in the 100k+ cost range) while having a _much_ lower impact on how much salvage helps you in a non-superweapon game.  If you're facing 2000 ship waves of ships that all cost in the 1000 to 2000 range, then you're still getting at least 70% of the salvage you used to.  If, on the other hand, you're facing 2000-ship attacks where half of those are guardians and golems and whatnot because of superweapon exos, then you'll no longer be swimming in as much metal because the total salvage collected will be more like 20% of what it would have been before.

2) It's not harmful in that as a player you _do not have to know the math_.  All you have to know is "stuff that costs more leaves more scrap".  How much more isn't something the game asks you to reason about, except in the question of what command station to use and/or to tank on the homeworld (which I think are interesting decisions).

The only reason I gave you the specific numbers here is so we can have a discussion about it from the game _design_ perspective.

That said, I'm fine with just making it 20% of what it used to be, across the board.  Or 30% or whatever.  If folks think that would be better than the sub-linear approach.