Author Topic: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.  (Read 7655 times)

Offline BobTheJanitor

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,689
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2011, 01:04:09 pm »
If the eye had to die last, it seems like your best strategy would then be to send in a quick raid on the command station directly with your blob waiting behind the wormhole, and then warp them in as soon as the comm station dies and hope you can keep the guards from scattering and killing your other planets.

Offline Red Spot

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2011, 01:29:50 pm »
- Blobbing isn't such a bad thing.
- AI Eyes don't do their jobs properly and clearing them is too repetitive
- Carriers should not be targetted unless explicitely told to.
- The AI should not reinforce any more once it reached its cap. Instead it could perhaps use it ships and attack in order to free his cap.
- It would be nice to have more difference between early/mid and endgame, whereas now it's generally more of the same, just slower and slower as the game goes on.

-Blobbing .... read above
-Eyes work perfectly imo. When you send in a fleet is spawns ships enough to make it painfull where a simply raid does wonders. When you clear out a planet but leave the Eye ... you will notice it. I like them as they are, perhaps they could spawn a few more ships if they encounter large fleets, and in some cases even more when just faced with a guerilla strikeforce.
-Leave carriers as they are pls. I like them, some case I want them killed soon, others I want them to linger. But it is me and a slight bit of micro that decides and if I dont than my ships do their jobs. (I love my bomber starships nuking them the instance they arrive in a wave and see ½ of the ships get stuck in tractor-turrets where those ships cant even my hit my Frigates pounding them into the ground. But I also love to see that I can set my ship to prefer the fleetship and only last focus on the carrier, but this is generally only the case where I am not properly set up to counter such an attack in that place. Never seem to have had an issue with them blowing up cause my 1-click micro failed, have seen it where failed to do the micro at all, but the micro works.)
-Again, I like carriers. I like the tactical play they provide when spawned on/flown towards your planets.
-I would almost ask you which game you play :D For me things speed up drasticly as things grow bigger (and the AI-terf smaller). Perhaps you are setting your econ up insufficient and are rebuilding too long as your econ just cant handle it (possibly for your playingstyle). Specially in the last patch things become more hectic once you get say 8-ish planets (~200AIP). That said, part of the game is what you make of it yourself and I just seem to have a neck for lvl4 planets  ::)

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2011, 01:39:05 pm »
The biggest takeaway for this thread is: the recent patches really screw with your savegame if you were playing the betas right before the last few betas as huuuuge amounts of threat can build up.  That creates a situation like the 9000-mark-V threat, which is something that normally wouldn't happen.

Also?  Because of some bugs in how carriers and barracks were being populated on caps lower than high, for a while the game was seeing far fewer than it should have from that, and then later was seeing way more than it should have because of it catching up by fixing the overages there.  Again, these are temporary issues in savegames from a very specific time period in the beta. 

Normally with a game you play from the start on the newer patches, those things would all happen gradually over time, leading to interesting border skirmishes; but in the case of savegames that are affected in this way, you get a game's worth of these battles pretty much all at once.

Going along with that, if you neuter an AI planet (even partially), it won't keep kicking out carriers at you.  Normally if you find that a planet is kicking out carriers at you, you'd go and neuter it a bit and the problem is solved.  Here again, the problem is with the savegames where all this stuff had built up and then the new rules kick in, and suddenly you've got all these carrier-producing planets (even one or two is bad enough) that might be very high-level and thus extra problematic.

TLDR:  A lot of these are caused by the savegame you upgraded into this.  It's nothing that you did wrong, it's just a matter of certain game-states not being upgradeable-without-pain into the newer adjusted game rules.  But starting a new game with the newer adjusted game rules doesn't result in the same thing (and those existing saves CAN be still played, but it results in extreme slowness and pain for a little while while the game self-corrects -- as you saw here).

Regarding AI Eyes Specifically:  I think zebramatt was right on the money here.

* AI Eyes now have 400 million health (same as wormhole guard posts) instead of 6 million, and are now destroyed when the last non-wormhole guard post of the AI on that planet is destroyed.
** In general, many fewer AI Eyes are now seeded, but the exact amount fewer is hard to express because it involves a divisor, the number of planets, a floor value of 2 per galaxy, and differences by AI type.
*** In general, with the defensive-type AIs that had extreme numbers of Eyes in the past (just tons and tons of them, they now have about 3x fewer than before.  In terms of the other AI types that had more moderate numbers already, they now have maybe 10% fewer, or thereabouts.
*** Unfortunately, due to the nature of the seeding, the number of AI Eyes will only be reduced in future savegames, not in existing ones.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Red Spot

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2011, 01:49:54 pm »
Ah, didn't see the 4.065 (pre?)release notes ...  ::)

Sounds like an interesting change :)
(Bombers rule!  8))

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2011, 02:06:07 pm »
Mithror, one thing you mentioned is that you didn't want taking a planet to take very long after you'd made the decision to take it.  I think one of the reasons that your desire for this is so far off from what the game is giving you is that the game is designed around you capturing quite a lot fewer planets than you've been capturing.  29 planets on a 40 planet map? And that's just so far?  Wow :)  Yea, that's going to make for a significantly longer game because you're taking probably 2x (almost 3x) as many planets as would probably be normal.

Not to say that it's wrong to just try to conquer the galaxy or most of it, but it's going to take more time.

Fwiw, the fallen-spire game typically is more amenable to just taking large swaths of territory from the AI once you've gotten to a certain point.  Depending on the difficulty the AIP may prove problematic, but generally you have a lot more flexibility there.  The actual taking of planets is generally faster too, if you're able to bring your strength to bear while maintaining your defenses.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2011, 02:21:33 pm »
Mithror, one thing you mentioned is that you didn't want taking a planet to take very long after you'd made the decision to take it.  I think one of the reasons that your desire for this is so far off from what the game is giving you is that the game is designed around you capturing quite a lot fewer planets than you've been capturing.  29 planets on a 40 planet map? And that's just so far?  Wow :)  Yea, that's going to make for a significantly longer game because you're taking probably 2x (almost 3x) as many planets as would probably be normal.

Not to say that it's wrong to just try to conquer the galaxy or most of it, but it's going to take more time.

Very much this.  On a 40-planet map, if you're fairly planet-taking-happy it's really still only expected that you'd need 20ish planets in multiplayer.  And you could probably get away with 10ish or so.

If you want to take lots of planets, but are not a completionist, I'd recommend playing on a larger map like 80 or even 100+ planets.  It is easier to take more planets on those sorts of maps, because they tend to be more spread out and thus the AI planets aren't going to be so reinforced all the time if you are hopping around between captures.  Even on 80 planets, taking more than 30 planets is going to be a slow thing, but that's kind of the nature of it.

The game is designed to kill players who try to take all the planets on the map, and while it is possible to take them all, it gets into a very long, slow, grindy game when you do.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline KingIsaacLinksr

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,332
  • A Paladin Without A Crusade...
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2011, 03:03:37 pm »
I'm sure its controversial, but I think when I was playing with Moonshine Fox a game or two ago, we were starting to ignore the "threat" of AI eyes a little too much.  It got to the point where basically even with scouting we would forget they were there and still survive well enough to kill the AI Eye in time.  

This change on the other hand may be just enough....eek.  

I'm curious to see what other more serious players of AIW think about it...I'm not sure yet until its implemented.

King
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 03:06:18 pm by kingisaaclinksr »
Casual reviewer with a sense of justice.
Visit the Arcen Mantis to help: https://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/
A Paladin's Blog. Long form videogame reviews focusing on mechanics and narrative analyzing. Plus other stuff. www.kingisaaclinksr.com

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2011, 03:17:53 pm »
Good points, king.

I should note that one of my big goals with the game is variety: when the various planets all become too samey, that's a problem to me.  With AI Eyes, they were intended to change things up in a certain way, but often they just added an extra step.  People complain about useless extra steps, and I'm totally with them on that. 

In some respects it was good as Keith notes because it encouraged players to scout and use raids with raid starships, ect.  That falls under a teaching mechanic, and that is very useful, but when that doesn't encourage players that are more experienced to do anything except have an extra step, that's mildly to moderately problematic.  I think that the AI Eye problem was fairly mild, honestly, as they aren't everywhere and the time expenditure wasn't that huge -- and there are other similar raid-first things, like ion cannons, for instance (though there are other ways around those).

The reason I was so fond of zebramatt's suggestion is that AI Eyes were supposed to be more.  They were intended to fundamentally change how you must attack certain targets.  In that sense they reward extra scouting a lot, because if you're intending to ignore starship unlocks that's only going to work if you don't intend to deal with an AI Eye planets, and/or if you're just going to roll with mark IV units or something similar to raid the AI Eye planet guerrilla-style in multiple waves.  So that creates some interesting options, and another reason to scout.

On the flip side, one problem prior to this version was that the excessively large ranges of a lot of the guardians meant that you couldn't divide up planets into multiple raids as well as you could in the 3.0 era or before.  That was a big problem for a lot of reason, and this AI Eye change just happens to fit really well with those other changes, since it wouldn't really work without them (you'd have no hope of taking the planet with a suitably small force if the whole planet gangs up on you every time.

The more I think about all the changes that have been happening lately (with balance alone, for instance), I'm thinking I need to call the new version 5.0 instead of 4.4.  We talk about things in terms of eras in terms of how the game feels to play, and I think that what we have lately is significantly different (and way better) than the "4.0 era" stuff.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Suzera

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2011, 04:36:39 pm »
Just the bonus ship rebalancing alone merits a much different feel, much less the planet gangupping and such.

AI Eyes are/were pretty much always everywhere in every game I played, even with many of the AI types that aren't all that defensive. It was to the point where I was looking to see what planets DIDN'T have them.

Starships still need a bit of boosting overall in my opinion though. At least the attack ones. Raid starships in particular suffer from "AI ship only" syndrome to some extent still. Their total damage and hp per cap is far worse than fleet ships, and they cost a lot more. Flagships at least get away with boosting a bunch of mk 3 fleet ships. Unlocking mk 2 bomber starships for 4k knowledge stacks poorly against 2.5k for bomber mk 2 and almost enough for another mk 2 in addition.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 04:49:19 pm by Suzera »

Offline Mithror

  • Jr. Member Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2011, 05:10:06 pm »
Mithror, one thing you mentioned is that you didn't want taking a planet to take very long after you'd made the decision to take it.  I think one of the reasons that your desire for this is so far off from what the game is giving you is that the game is designed around you capturing quite a lot fewer planets than you've been capturing.  29 planets on a 40 planet map? And that's just so far?  Wow :)  Yea, that's going to make for a significantly longer game because you're taking probably 2x (almost 3x) as many planets as would probably be normal.

Not to say that it's wrong to just try to conquer the galaxy or most of it, but it's going to take more time.

Fwiw, the fallen-spire game typically is more amenable to just taking large swaths of territory from the AI once you've gotten to a certain point.  Depending on the difficulty the AIP may prove problematic, but generally you have a lot more flexibility there.  The actual taking of planets is generally faster too, if you're able to bring your strength to bear while maintaining your defenses.

Ok, but here's a question then:

If you take 10 planets on the map, do you take them in a line? Do you capture a small clusters of 3 planets?

Because I think we were trying to do the latter, especially with the core shield generators. Trying not to capture too many planets in the process, but when we were annoyed with always having to defend against all the harrassing ships, we just started to take more planets. Creating a big cluster instead of smaller ones to make ourselves more secure and then reduced the AIP from 500 tot 220 or something via the Super Terminal. I guess maybe with the AIP reduction, we expected the AI to lower it's threat, dunno?

I definitely think the biggest struggle was probably due to the passive Threat that kept building which caused a huge delay =)

Also:

- How/When does Threat get created exactly?
- If you only have 10 planets, you're bound to have lots of ingression points, how do you defend against that? More importantly, how do you defend and still keep the offensive?

Btw, x4000, you say the following:

Quote
The game is designed to kill players who try to take all the planets on the map, and while it is possible to take them all, it gets into a very long, slow, grindy game when you do.

Don't you think this is a reason you might be missing out on some market potential? What you're basically saying here is: "If you suck, you're going to lose, but it's going to take a loooooong time before you find out". I hadn't really thought about it this way until my friend pointed it out, but he does have a point. Some people might not want to invest in a game where losing takes a long time. It doesn't make the learning process easy. Don't know how you'd go about solving this issue with the current mechanics though :/

Regardless of what I might have written here though, I think the most important message of this thread I'd like to share should still be:

We finished our game and had a blast doing it! :)

(In the end we neutered the last AI homeworld and took all the other planets for the 'Control 35' Achievement. We also used this to check out some of the other research unlocks.)


Offline Suzera

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2011, 05:17:19 pm »
It's always really easy to take a long time losing in RTS games. You can also suck and lose really quickly.

You can blow up just the warp gates on adjacent planets to stop warp waves for 5aip instead of 20. In the second midgame phase I usually blow up all but one warp link to concentrate all turrets there, and make sure it is facing the AI HWs in case of blowback. Preemptively attack neighboring planets to clear out buildup without blowing up the command centers so cross planet attacks don't happen. Research raid instead of capture planets you don't need for economy or beachheads.

Usually I end up with a "home cluster" of about 6-10 planets then nomadically fight into AI territory taking planets for beachheads or whatnot as needed and as few as possible. 80 planet map for scale.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 05:19:32 pm by Suzera »

Offline Zeyurn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2011, 05:20:37 pm »
Carriers are interesting to me.  It's especially interesting to read the complaint that stuff is attacking the carriers when you don't want it to, because my entire experience with carriers is wanting them to die RIGHT NOW so they don't bypass my defenses and the stuff in them is exposed to lightning/flak fire.  Granted my opinion would probably change with the numbers you're experiencing.

I like the proposed change to AI Eyes in part although it's still not really going to stop blobbing because blobbing is really the only relevant strategy beside Raid Starships, even when confronted with an AI Eye.  Especially because AI Eyes are incredibly frustrating in that you bring in a force that does not trigger the AI Eye, kill some of the enemies there just trying to get to where you're going and suddenly you're inundated with enemy troops.  I think AI Eyes need to not trigger in those situations or there's no reason to do anything other than snipe the guard posts with raid starships.  Maybe you should only trigger an AI Eye going off if a new player ship enters the planet and the subsequent ratio is bad?

EDIT:  I want to say I really support what the AI Eyes are trying to do because anything that gets AI War away from 'giant mass of ships attacking other giant mass of ships' is great to me.  I just look at the change and think 'oh that entire planet is going to have to be slowly dealt with by raid starships'.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 05:24:52 pm by Zeyurn »

Offline Suzera

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2011, 05:27:16 pm »
The only thing I can think of that will really stop blobbing is a universal ship cap (that increases with unlocks, or possibly just knowledge accumulation) as opposed to individual ones so you have to choose what to go with in your fleet rather than "ALL I CAN BUILD OF EVERYTHING YEAH!" all the time.

Edit: pretty sure I suggested that in the long long ago but it got shot down then. It would make the game more strategically diverse in my opinion though. You' have to do it sort of by an amount of ship caps though. So you can have three current ship caps of bomber or a current ship cap of bombers, snipers and etherjets each, or a current ship cap of flagships, bombers and frigates rather than an absolute ship count maximum that would lead to just building hundreds of bomber starships all the time or crazy stuff like that.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 05:31:18 pm by Suzera »

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2011, 05:28:24 pm »
I'd say that generally it's a matter of just taking one planet at a time, not clumps of three.  Gate-raiding, as Suzera says, is meant to be all you need to do in most cases there.  You can do some partial neutering, too, if you want.  Or, in the case of the ARS planets that you don't want to keep, you can always make the choice to abandon them after you get what you need, too.  For something like a fabricator or an advanced factory, doing what you're doing and capturing buffer planets is certainly not a bad idea, though it's not the only thing to do.

Quote
Don't you think this is a reason you might be missing out on some market potential?

It frustrates me to no end that people assume that AI War has failed to hit its market for some reason.  Our financial difficulties had nothing to do with AI War, in the main.  It's sold better than most other indie strategy games, and especially those that are simpler or easier (the AAA boys have that space locked up tight).

At any rate, even if the financial difficulties had been AI War related: no, I don't think it would have cost us much of anything if it took a long time to lose, and realize you were losing.  For someone to even get to the point of realizing that, they would have had to have already paid us the money to buy the game.  The only way that could have been at all related in that theoretical scenario was if it hurt word of mouth or reviews.  But both have been absolutely stellar: word of mouth is almost universally positive, although small compared to some games; and AI War was the 40th-best-reviewed game of 2009, including all the AAA games.  There were only about 5ish indie games on that list at all, and most of them were not strategy games.

Anyway, the tutorial tells you to fear the AI Progress and even teaches you about planet hopping, etc, so most players have come out the other side of that being afraid to take anything, moreso than taking too much.  Those that do take a ton of planets usually seem to want a protracted game, and play it for dozens of hours per campaign.  For those who are uncertain, the wiki even has a prominent article in the getting started section with some various recommendations.

I see your point, but I don't think it's correct in a general sense.  There are always outliers to any statement, though, so certainly there must be some people who are playing the game and running into more trouble because they play the game in a completionist fashion and get curbstomped.  There may even be some who then ragequit and don't ever read the manual or try to savescum and figure out what went wrong.  I can't do anything about that.  But, clearly you're not in that sort of group, eh, as you're really enjoying the game despite it getting grindier as you go based on overall too-high-AIP.

By the way, the reason the AI keeps getting more reinforcements is that the number of planets you control affects the scale of reinforcements even more than AIP does.  For more details, see the Reinforcements section in the wiki.

That was long and rambly, addressing points all over the place and out of order, but hopefully it made some kind of sense. ;)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2011, 05:29:59 pm »
In terms of anti-blobbing stuff, global ship caps are definitely out.  Bear in mind it's not meant to be "no blobbing, ever."  It's just meant to be "no thoughtless blobbing every time."  Some amount of "massive groups of ships moving around" is inevitable.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!