Poll: Should AI homeworlds be buffed? If so, How?

[Lancefighter]

clearly avengers needs to be an enabled ai plot for the second ai killed, no matter what.

[chemical_art]

Voted for "galaxy wide response". Would also vote for "increased cloak counter measures (which in my mind is different from complete counter cloaking altogether" if I could re vote. I don't feel the ai should out of thin air (compared to already) make magical things happen, but on the other hand if most of the galaxy is breeming is ships they should swarm to defend the ai. If they periodically make tachyon missile like strikes when they are alert I'd support as well.

The one vote I'm against is "permanent alert if either homeworld is attacked" on several levels:

1) It denies the goal of "battlefields within battlefields" feel.
2) It denies the value of deep value strikes.
3) It doubly strikes with the already very steep price of aip when destroying an homeworld, which is already in place to prevent one player from completely annihilating one homeworld before pursuing the next.
4) It accelerates my single largest complaint to ai wars: stagnation to threat  (not as present in most games, but not fan a step in the direction, especially when the solution to this problem is the step below)
5) It still does not prevent the ai baiting exploits, but rather makes it encouraged to deal with any failed assault or a second assault on the ai homeworld.

[Kahuna]

Added "massive defensive AI ships."

I assume the "core defenders" section was what you were referring to, Kahuna. If not, please specify what you would like me to add.

Yes Core Defenders. Ofcourse there could be a Interplanetary Cloaking Super Booster on a Core planet too. Or Interplanetary Black Hole Machine.

Well I don't want you to add anything specific but you can if you want to. Dunno.. lot of people have voted already so maybe it's better to stick with the original options?
Maybe you could edit your first post and post the "Other (post below, will add)" stuff there? Then the poll would stay the same and people wouldn't have to change their votes. If you do this  you could just add the link my mantis thing. If you add it in the poll I think " "New toys for the AI" by Kahuna (Read below)" (or something like that) might be better. "massive defensive AI ships" sounds a bit vague.

[Kahuna]

Voted for "galaxy wide response". Would also vote for "increased cloak counter measures (which in my mind is different from complete counter cloaking altogether" if I could re vote. I don't feel the ai should out of thin air (compared to already) make magical things happen, but on the other hand if most of the galaxy is breeming is ships they should swarm to defend the ai. If they periodically make tachyon missile like strikes when they are alert I'd support as well.

The one vote I'm against is "permanent alert if either homeworld is attacked" on several levels:

1) It denies the goal of "battlefields within battlefields" feel.
2) It denies the value of deep value strikes.
3) It doubly strikes with the already very steep price of aip when destroying an homeworld, which is already in place to prevent one player from completely annihilating one homeworld before pursuing the next.
4) It accelerates my single largest complaint to ai wars: stagnation to threat  (not as present in most games, but not fan a step in the direction, especially when the solution to this problem is the step below)
5) It still does not prevent the ai baiting exploits, but rather makes it encouraged to deal with any failed assault or a second assault on the ai homeworld.

Hmm.. true. I would change "Both permanently alerted if either attacked" vote to "Provoke galaxy-wide response on attack" if it was possible. Votes seem to be locked atm.

[PokerChen]

I don't think simply having MOAR ships (in total) is the answer. I've voted for bringing core fleets into the HW, having AI defense fleets patrolling nearby, and other.

This other I will describe:
- destruction of core guard posts will trigger spawning of exo-defense fleets w/ carriers through the extra-galactic wormhole (small countdown). Each core guard post destroyed in this way increases the next fleet by 5%. I think this is slightly "gentler" than adding an extra raid engine since defense fleets sizes and Mark levels can be determined by AIP instead of being stuck at mark-V.

- This encourages some staggering between core guardpost destruction to deal with reinforcements before they build up.

- Also, one may introduce a chance for exo-fleets being spawned at the other-HW that will attack the player-HW.

While the "Galaxy-wide response" option is logical, it may not be very useful depending on the map layout - or be kind on the CPU load. If we started converting ships into carriers

[Bognor]

The patch that massively buffed core guard posts and put homeworlds on permanent mini-alert was only released six weeks ago.  Plus, special forces will now rally to defend a homeworld as of a patch released three days ago.  The buffs to starship stats in that same patch might buff homeworlds a smidgin too, given their high starship concentration.  So I think it's a bit early for this poll.

[TechSY730]

4) It accelerates my single largest complaint to ai wars: stagnation to threat  (not as present in most games, but not fan a step in the direction, especially when the solution to this problem is the step below)

You may be interested in 7016: Reduce the firepower cutoff ratio that "stalking a wormhole" AI ships will wait for before entering
and/or 9396: After waiting a long time on a wormhole, threat should "reroll" which planet to stalk

[Mánagarmr]

The patch that massively buffed core guard posts and put homeworlds on permanent mini-alert was only released six weeks ago.  Plus, special forces will now rally to defend a homeworld as of a patch released three days ago.  The buffs to starship stats in that same patch might buff homeworlds a smidgin too, given their high starship concentration.  So I think it's a bit early for this poll.

I feel the same way, hence I voted for "They shouldn't be."

[Hearteater]

The one vote I'm against is "permanent alert if either homeworld is attacked" on several levels:

1) It denies the goal of "battlefields within battlefields" feel.
2) It denies the value of deep value strikes.
3) It doubly strikes with the already very steep price of aip when destroying an homeworld, which is already in place to prevent one player from completely annihilating one homeworld before pursuing the next.
4) It accelerates my single largest complaint to ai wars: stagnation to threat  (not as present in most games, but not fan a step in the direction, especially when the solution to this problem is the step below)
5) It still does not prevent the ai baiting exploits, but rather makes it encouraged to deal with any failed assault or a second assault on the ai homeworld.

Compelling arguments and I think I might un-vote for this option...except I can't change my vote .

[Mánagarmr]

Compelling arguments and I think I might un-vote for this option...except I can't change my vote .

*paging Keith*

[keith.lamothe]

Poll fixed.

I may need to load the poll code into a rocket and fire it into the sun.

[Mánagarmr]

Poll fixed.

I may need to load the poll code into a rocket and fire it into the sun.

That clearly worked for Nuclear Man...right?

[Kahuna]

Polls work for me. Which browser you're using Faulty Logic? I use Chrome.

[Draco18s]

Polls work for me. Which browser you're using Faulty Logic? I use Chrome.

His problem isn't a client side issue, it's a server side issue.  Every time he changes the poll's options, it locks people's votes in, so they can't change them.

[LaughingThesaurus]

I may need to load the poll code into a rocket and fire it into the sun.

Can you take my old computer with, once it's replaced?