Author Topic: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.  (Read 7658 times)

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2011, 07:54:32 pm »
Well, in a sense, AI War already has not one but three "global" systems for limiting your ships: knowledge, metal+crystal(+time), and energy.  Energy is fundamentally the same as the "capacity" resource suggested earlier (except that it scales upward via territory and a certain capturable, rather than knowledge or whatever).

None of those are intended to be overly draconian and all 3 can be "pushed out" by acquiring more territory and whatnot, but they do force you to choose from a superset of options what you actually use.
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 Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2011, 08:33:18 pm »
Some planets would have fortresses that require more bombers. Some planets end up with a glut of some ship like bombers that requires a lot of fighters to take down. If you want to raid, just build loads of fighters for a while, go raid, then build a mixed fleet for more crushing when you're blocked by a fortress or a force field. There's lots of times I have thought I would have wanted more of various ship types per situation. With individual caps it's pretty much always just "build everything" though with no thought. I guess this applies mostly just to bombers and fighters though. Bombers because they're needed for pretty much every "special planet thing" and fighters because they're cheap raiders. At least that's a choice between two things instead of one thing though. I could also see a horde of something like etherjets being useful.

If the planets are sufficiently varied, there should be no killer combo. If they aren't varied, then at worst there's only one optimal option in almost every case just like now with the current state of the game.

Edit for another good example:
If there's a shield ninny, I might compose my fleet more of siege starships and bombards instead of the usual bombers/frigates/etc while leaving those out due to them dragging speed down. If sieges starships are a large part of my fleet, then the speed penalty is less of an issue.
I understand your point, but the diversity in this game actually comes from choosing which technologies to unlock, not how many of each ship type you build.  In all honesty, having unlimited ship caps would most likely take away from the game for me (and many others) because there would be a LOT more micromanagement when choosing how many of each ship type you wanted, you couldn't simply leave your factories on auto-build because you probably be out of resources all the time, and then in a situation where you couldn't produce the ships or defense you needed at the moment because of it.

I find the AI War knowledge system very deep and diverse in itself.  You simply don't have the knowledge you want, nor the means to get enough of it without putting yourself at great risk; the strategy of the game comes from this mechanic.

In addition, I can see a million ways already that a no-ship cap limit could be abused.  A thousand snipers, a thousand grenade launchers, a thousand autobombs, you could literally wipe out entire planets in seconds.  There's no way that's balanced.
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline Suzera

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2011, 08:44:44 pm »
I didn't say the knowledge system would be scrapped. You would be able to decide which way to focus your global ship cap. If you research all the bombers you have a very capable bomber force, but your fighters and frigates will still suck until you upgrade.

A thousand autobombs wouldn't wipe out a planet in seconds. If it did, you can already do that RIGHT NOW since they're disposable to begin with. Snipers would obviously take up more ship capacity than other ships. For a thousand snipers you could have 5000 bombers. You already can't even really build 5000 fleet ships unless you have high cap and lots of raiders or something. You'd still have 1/5 as many possible total snipers as bombers just like now, except your entire fleet could be bent towards just bombers or just snipers if it was advantageous on certain planets to do so. Right now you just get one choice, build one ship cap of everything. Changing that to a global "ship supply cap" will only at worst give you a different one option. I can think of at least 4 different configurations of stuff easily I could apply all the time that are good for different planet situations were I able to replace my ship cap of A for an additional ship cap of B, and then the other way for a different attack or planet type.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 08:52:09 pm by Suzera »

Offline Burnstreet

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2011, 09:15:59 pm »
I didn't say the knowledge system would be scrapped. You would be able to decide which way to focus your global ship cap. If you research all the bombers you have a very capable bomber force, but your fighters and frigates will still suck until you upgrade.

A thousand autobombs wouldn't wipe out a planet in seconds. If it did, you can already do that RIGHT NOW since they're disposable to begin with. Snipers would obviously take up more ship capacity than other ships. For a thousand snipers you could have 5000 bombers. You already can't even really build 5000 fleet ships unless you have high cap and lots of raiders or something. You'd still have 1/5 as many possible total snipers as bombers just like now, except your entire fleet could be bent towards just bombers or just snipers if it was advantageous on certain planets to do so. Right now you just get one choice, build one ship cap of everything. Changing that to a global "ship supply cap" will only at worst give you a different one option. I can think of at least 4 different configurations of stuff easily I could apply all the time that are good for different planet situations were I able to replace my ship cap of A for an additional ship cap of B, and then the other way for a different attack or planet type.

I think a global ship cap would make balancing a lot harder than it is currently, because you have to acconut for all the edge cases.
In addition, it makes it far easier to shoot yourself in the foot.

By the way, it is possible to neutralize an AI eye by just having enough firepower, shieldbearers and engineers.
Yay to Golems and spirecraft :D

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 #49 on: January 10, 2011, 09:38:30 pm »
Well, we don't need to get bogged down into discussions of a global ship cap, anyway -- I'm not for it at all, and it's a problem I've considered for quite a long time.
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 #50 on: January 11, 2011, 01:08:12 am »
I didn't say the knowledge system would be scrapped. You would be able to decide which way to focus your global ship cap. If you research all the bombers you have a very capable bomber force, but your fighters and frigates will still suck until you upgrade.

A thousand autobombs wouldn't wipe out a planet in seconds. If it did, you can already do that RIGHT NOW since they're disposable to begin with. Snipers would obviously take up more ship capacity than other ships. For a thousand snipers you could have 5000 bombers. You already can't even really build 5000 fleet ships unless you have high cap and lots of raiders or something. You'd still have 1/5 as many possible total snipers as bombers just like now, except your entire fleet could be bent towards just bombers or just snipers if it was advantageous on certain planets to do so. Right now you just get one choice, build one ship cap of everything. Changing that to a global "ship supply cap" will only at worst give you a different one option. I can think of at least 4 different configurations of stuff easily I could apply all the time that are good for different planet situations were I able to replace my ship cap of A for an additional ship cap of B, and then the other way for a different attack or planet type.

I think a global ship cap would make balancing a lot harder than it is currently, because you have to acconut for all the edge cases.
In addition, it makes it far easier to shoot yourself in the foot.

By the way, it is possible to neutralize an AI eye by just having enough firepower, shieldbearers and engineers.
Yay to Golems and spirecraft :D

Well, Golems and Spirecraft are "technically" super-weapons so that's not too surprising.  I don't think we really need to balance them with those in mind, otherwise we'd never kill the AI eyes without them x_x

King
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 Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2011, 02:52:53 am »
Well, we don't need to get bogged down into discussions of a global ship cap, anyway -- I'm not for it at all, and it's a problem I've considered for quite a long time.
It's a question of depth, not balance.  You could certainly make the argument that the game is not as deep as it could be because of arbitrary unit cap restrictions; and I would probably agree with that.  But you could also make the argument that the game lacks depth because of lack of diplomacy options, lack of micromanagement, lack of unit upgrades, and a whole other slew of things that the game doesn't need.  AI War is already a very deep and complicated game, I'd rather just leave it at that.
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline Mithror

  • Jr. Member Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #52 on: January 11, 2011, 03:36:02 am »
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.

Just to further clarify on this:

Let's say we're playing on a 40 planet galaxy and the player controls 35 of them. The wiki says that the AI won't get more than 15 reinforcement 'points', meaning he can only reinforce 15 planets max. In that case, it doesn't really matter that the player controls 35 as in the example or 15 as in a more realistic game, because the number of times he can reinforce is capped at 15. Does the danger of this, however, lie in the fact that instead of reinforcing 15 seperate planets a single time, he might now reinforce planets 3 times? I.e. tripling the number of reinforcements per planet?

Can the AI reinforce a planet more than 2 times (something which isn't implied on the wiki)?

If not, then in the above case he would have 5 extra reinforcement points to spend. Will he add those reinforcements to the Threat level? I.e. Border aggression?

Does border aggression only kick in when ALL planets are full? Because with the new stalking element, I doubt that there'd be many planets that have over 3500 ships, which is already a case where the AIP is 1200 according to the wiki. Even in my game I've never seen this (mostly due to the ships being in carriers and not counted towards the ship count in that planet).

The wiki says that Border aggression means ships will start trickling into your system, won't they get added to Threat level instead? And only attack when the AI thinks he can beat you?

Will the AI prefer to double up (or triple up or ....) on alerted planets prior to reinforcing non-alerted planets? So, if there are three planets on alert and he has 6 reinforce points, will he first try to double up on all alerted planets and only if he can't choose a non-alerted planet to reinforce?

Related to above questions: Can he triple up on 2 of the three planets instead of doubling up on all three?

If one of the homeworlds of the AI is destroyed, does this mean he can't reinforce anymore?

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 #53 on: January 11, 2011, 11:51:50 am »
Well, we don't need to get bogged down into discussions of a global ship cap, anyway -- I'm not for it at all, and it's a problem I've considered for quite a long time.
It's a question of depth, not balance.  You could certainly make the argument that the game is not as deep as it could be because of arbitrary unit cap restrictions; and I would probably agree with that.  But you could also make the argument that the game lacks depth because of lack of diplomacy options, lack of micromanagement, lack of unit upgrades, and a whole other slew of things that the game doesn't need.  AI War is already a very deep and complicated game, I'd rather just leave it at that.

See, that's exactly where the difference of opinion lies between the two camps, and what I don't want to get into. ;)  Some folks believe (like me) that having a system like you describe is actually shallower, while others think that the AI War is shallower.  I don't want to get into a debate, as it's likely no one will ever agree (hence why there are so many games with so many systems -- and hey, that's cool, in the end.

For the curious, the short version of why I think the other way is shallower is that it causes two bad behaviors: 1) accumulation of only the favorite units of the player (and thus lack of experimentation), and 2) no need to figure out how to use a diverse force of units. 

The best example is Chess, as is often the case: you get a specific number of specific types of units, you don't get an overall number of "piece points" that you can spend.  If you could, then you'd see people with a king, two queens, four rooks and two bishops, and no pawns or knights -- versus somebody with a dizzyingly confusing eight knights and a king.  That sort of game could work, but I'd argue it wouldn't be as deep as real Chess.

Obviously, with an RTS there is one key difference: when ships of a type die, you can rebuild them.  So it's not like you have a finite number of queens, anyway.  But, when you have a limited capacity of ships, and more fronts than you can handle with all homogeneous setups, the idea is that you still have to figure out how to use those queens, knights, and bishops in interesting ways, split in a challenging fashion between the different fronts, rather than just building enough queens for every front.

We could go on and on in a debate about this sort of thing, but don't take this as a challenge: I actually understand the point on the other side, about greater choice, etc.  I just don't agree that player actions bear that out -- and I figured I'd at least explain why, rather than just clamming up without explaining.  Anyhow, I'm done on that subject now, back to coding, very busy week. ;)
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 #54 on: January 11, 2011, 12:06:07 pm »
Let's say we're playing on a 40 planet galaxy and the player controls 35 of them. The wiki says that the AI won't get more than 15 reinforcement 'points', meaning he can only reinforce 15 planets max. In that case, it doesn't really matter that the player controls 35 as in the example or 15 as in a more realistic game, because the number of times he can reinforce is capped at 15. Does the danger of this, however, lie in the fact that instead of reinforcing 15 seperate planets a single time, he might now reinforce planets 3 times? I.e. tripling the number of reinforcements per planet?

Actually, I forgot about the 15 point cap -- so, no, it's 15 points total, regardless of how many planets (if one planet takes 3 points, then there's only 12 points left, etc).  But, it still gets very challenging because the AIP is higher, and of course there's the time factor.  If reinforcements are happening every 5-8 minutes or so (per AI player), and you've maxed out the reinforcement points, then that's a heck of a lot of ships getting added to the galaxy every 5-8 minutes.  If it takes you even just 30 minutes to capture each planet, then after 5 hours of capturing an added 10 planets, the AIs have had (at worst) something like 1125 reinforcement points between the two of them.  That's going to fill up quite a lot of planets, eh?

That time factor is actually the killer, it's going to be more and more of a slog if you just let the AI keep reinforcing constantly.  If you strike quicker, there is less chance for the AI to do that.

Can the AI reinforce a planet more than 2 times (something which isn't implied on the wiki)?

Yes and no.  Normally: no.  The AI can double-reinforce planets that it is particularly worried about, but that's all.  Beyond that, assuming that it has enough planets left to reinforce at, it will spread them out evenly unless there are other planets it is very worried about.

If not, then in the above case he would have 5 extra reinforcement points to spend. Will he add those reinforcements to the Threat level? I.e. Border aggression?

Here's where the yes comes in, from above.  Assuming that the AI reaches the end of its list of planets and still has reinforcement points left, then it just goes through the whole loop again.  Planets it's worried about probably get another double-dose, and so forth.  If you've got the AI players down to a single planet, you're going to see 15x reinforcement points per AI player getting spent every 5-8 minutes.  It's going to be a bear of a battle.

Does border aggression only kick in when ALL planets are full? Because with the new stalking element, I doubt that there'd be many planets that have over 3500 ships, which is already a case where the AIP is 1200 according to the wiki. Even in my game I've never seen this (mostly due to the ships being in carriers and not counted towards the ship count in that planet).

No, it's per-planet.  And the numbers on the wiki are actually only correct for High, the numbers are halved for Normal and quartered for Low ship caps.  I'm sure you've seen border aggression, you just might not have known what it was, as it's pretty subtle: sometimes enemy ships show up, and it might not be clear why, but they always come from that giant heavily-reinforced planet over there, etc.

The wiki says that Border aggression means ships will start trickling into your system, won't they get added to Threat level instead? And only attack when the AI thinks he can beat you?

Yes, the wiki is referring to 4.021 and before, but now they act as you describe.

Will the AI prefer to double up (or triple up or ....) on alerted planets prior to reinforcing non-alerted planets? So, if there are three planets on alert and he has 6 reinforce points, will he first try to double up on all alerted planets and only if he can't choose a non-alerted planet to reinforce?

It depends.  It evaluates each planet individually.  If there are three planets on alert, and none of them are planets that the AI considers absolutely critical (it has its own non-visible internal evaluations for that), then it would just reinforce all three once, and then the other three would go somewhere random.  If they were viewed as critical, then it would double them up.  But simply being on alert at all doesn't have any bearing on if it will double them up.

Related to above questions: Can he triple up on 2 of the three planets instead of doubling up on all three?

Definitely he cannot.

If one of the homeworlds of the AI is destroyed, does this mean he can't reinforce anymore?

Destroying the homeworld of one AI has no effect on anything related to gameplay: you get nothing for it, and actually the AIP goes up.  This is the same on the human side in multiplayer: actually if one player loses their home planet, their economy gets better.  It's not until all the players on whichever team are dead that the game ends.

On the AI side, this prevents the game from being a downhill slide (as with most RTS games) after the first AI is dead.  That's boring.  And on the human side, this prevents co-op players from being out of the game early, and thus sitting around for a dozen hours with nothing to do (or, more likely, causing the entire team to give up or savescum as soon as one player loses their home).
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 Zeyurn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #55 on: January 11, 2011, 05:09:27 pm »

Destroying the homeworld of one AI has no effect on anything related to gameplay: you get nothing for it, and actually the AIP goes up.  This is the same on the human side in multiplayer: actually if one player loses their home planet, their economy gets better.  It's not until all the players on whichever team are dead that the game ends.

On the AI side, this prevents the game from being a downhill slide (as with most RTS games) after the first AI is dead.  That's boring.  And on the human side, this prevents co-op players from being out of the game early, and thus sitting around for a dozen hours with nothing to do (or, more likely, causing the entire team to give up or savescum as soon as one player loses their home).

Wait, what?  Your economy goes up if you lose your home planet in multiplayer?  We've always been (as you said) restarting when we have one of the really early game deaths to avoid the loss of the super-production that the initial stuff claims to give.

Offline Moo

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2011, 10:49:39 am »
Wait, what?  Your economy goes up if you lose your home planet in multiplayer?  We've always been (as you said) restarting when we have one of the really early game deaths to avoid the loss of the super-production that the initial stuff claims to give.
The home command station core gives considerably more resources than the original command station. True, you lose the other resource structures, but it's not that unusual to lose a few of them if you get a very heavy attack at some point anyway.

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 #57 on: January 13, 2011, 12:46:23 pm »
Yep, Moo is exactly right -- and the harvesters can be rebuilt, too.  There's really no reason to ever restart if a player dies in multiplayer, that's counter to the goals of the game.  It's rare that all of the players in my 4-player sessions make it to the end with their homes intact, even when we do win.  It's not even that rare for us to be down to our last home planet, for that matter.
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 Zeyurn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2011, 08:35:44 pm »
I'm one of those weirdoes that takes 50-75% of the galaxy over and has an entirely contiguous line of planets, so our homes are usually in very good shape.  But that's very good to know for future reference.

Offline Sunshine!

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: Of Eyes, Carriers and the Endgame.
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2011, 09:03:57 pm »
Yep, Moo is exactly right -- and the harvesters can be rebuilt, too.  There's really no reason to ever restart if a player dies in multiplayer, that's counter to the goals of the game.  It's rare that all of the players in my 4-player sessions make it to the end with their homes intact, even when we do win.  It's not even that rare for us to be down to our last home planet, for that matter.

Right now, it only gives you the one Home Command Station Core, regardless of how many homeworlds you started with.  So, in the case of multi-planet starts, your economy does actually get significantly worse if one of your homeworlds (and therefore all of your homeworlds) die.