So, this whole crystal thing (wait I think I used that title already...)

[Cinth]

@Cinth
I'm a bit surprised when you say that hacking doesn't add anything to your game.  Out of curiosity, what game type do you play:  AIP, superweapons, FS, etc?  I would think that if K was that essential to you--and understandably so--you would K hack planets for an additional AIP-free K bonus.  Of course, if you level the whole galaxy with FS before finishing the AI, I would understand not K-hacking what you will capture anyways .

I play an all out war vs the AI.  Typical set up is as follows: FS (4/10), Spirecraft (4/10), 120 planets with 16 HWs.  With my starting K, I'll usually unlock MK III harvesters, MK III turrets, FF IIs, Mod Forts, Spire SS MK II and Zenith SS MK II.  I run 8 champs.  I usually sit on some K so that when I start the FS campaign I can unlock Plasma SS and FF IIIs.  Taking a lot of planets isn't an issue at all (even on 10/10).  There is some variation based on AI unlocks but that is the general plan.

I mentioned this earlier, but I only hack ARS (if I feel like gaming the production facilities to have all my ship types) and the ST.  The ST is probably the only hack that I find I can't usually skip. 

 Yeah, I know I'm in the minority when it comes to the way I play, but we are talking about something that should impact everyone to some extent. 

[Radiant Phoenix]

I could see "hacking" expanding into a more general, "mess with the AI in ways other than blowing stuff up," category of stuff.

---

I play with Fallen Spire 4 and as many minor factions as I feel comfortable with, which is generally:

• Raiders 0-10 (they're a bit annoying; I think I'll try 4)
• Resistance 0-10 (they don't seem to do much, and suicide a lot, so I'll probably turn them down because)
• Dyson Sphere 10 (Considering a smaller number)
• Preservation Wardens 4
• Roaming Enclaves 1-2 (from before their number was changed; probably going to go back to 4 now)
• (Fallen Spire 4)

[LaughingThesaurus]

Wait

You go all-out war and incur lots of AIP. That gives you infinitely more hacking opportunities. When we figure out the whole showcase of abilities and advantages you glean from hacking, you'll be able to get tons of those-- all the more for having more AIP.

[keith.lamothe]

@Cinth (...) Out of curiosity, what game type do you play:  AIP, superweapons, FS, etc?

Yes, yes, and YES.  He plays the "melt the CPU" type of game.

[Cinth]

@ Keith: Lol. 

Wait

You go all-out war and incur lots of AIP. That gives you infinitely more hacking opportunities. When we figure out the whole showcase of abilities and advantages you glean from hacking, you'll be able to get tons of those-- all the more for having more AIP.

Let's look at this from my perspective. It's a relatively high difficulty game (for the modifiers to AI strength). With the above settings (I have more stuff in there but that will work for this).

When I decide to take fabricators or other toys, only something that will cost me the game will cause me to lose it.
No need for hacking.

Special forces are irrelevant at every stage of my game (due to the way I chokepoint). Hacking irrelevant.

Anything dealing with gaining resources form an AI controlled planet.  If I need more resources, I will take it from the AI and put an Econ III there. Hacking not needed.

I don't play with the CSG.  Nemesis fleet prevents me from cheesing the HW early (get a BB with 10 AIP and check out the fleet). Option invalid since no CSG exists.

Brutal Core Guardposts? I'd like to introduce you to the Spire Imperial Fleet. Need I say more?  Hacking, pshh. Watching the Spire rofl stomp the AI is a hell of a lot more fun.

AI eyes?  Those are all gone before I even start the FS campaign.  The quest for Champion XP trumps the need to hack those.

Supply hacking?  To subvert deepstriking? I like sending 8 Neinzul champs with nanosubverters on the deepstrike path... Zombie apocalypse in the AI's backyard? Yes please .  Dropping turrets at a forward place?  That might be the ONLY thing in here that might be ok, but I can always take the planet by the super terminal and set up supply there through normal means. 

So yeah, the only hack I still want to do is the ST.

 And yes, the signature I have is from a ST hack that went over 3000 in AIP reduction .

EDIT: Just to note: I play 1 HW games on my laptop but those aren't generally as fun to me as the wars I have on my desktop. (Laptop doesn't handle the game well at all)

[keith.lamothe]

Ok, numbers.

The currently available hacking types:

Knowledge-hacking generates 3.33~ antagonism per point of K raided.  So 10,000 per full planet's worth of K.  In multiplayer this is divided by the number of players in the game who use knowledge (so excluding AI and champ-only players), since everyone K raids separately there.
- 10k sounds like a typo on my part; it started at 80,000 and while that was probably too much 10k sounds abusably low (quick, go exploit before it's fixed!).  Anyway, will look at that more.

Superterminal-hacking generates 1500 antagonism per tick, and each tick has a net -1 effect on AIP, so a full planet's worth (20 AIP) generates 30,000 antagonism.

Ship-Design-hacking generates 30,000 at the end of the first one, and each one after that is 3x the previous one, so 30,000/90,000/270,000/810,000/2,430,000.  Going past the second one is, thus, generally very painful.


Each form of hacking has its own response logic for what happens during the actual hack (when the spawns happen, how intense they are, what special tricks it can pull, how frequently those happen and at what thresholds, etc).  But the total antagonism number is the baseline.  The current "tiers" described in the alert box are:

0 : no alert at all
1 - 29,999 : alert text says "Very Low"
30,000 - 79,999 : "Low"
80,000 - 159,999 : "Moderate"
160,000 - 239,999 : "High"
240,000 - 319,999 : "Very High"
320,000 - 499,999 : "Extreme"
500,000+ : "Forest Fire (Extreme!)"


My current thought implementation-wise for the scaling-with-AIP is to leave the raw antagonism number as-is (balancing aside) and to make "effective antagonism" (which is what would actually be used for computing responses) equal to this raw number times a multiplier determined by AIP.

Tried to come up with a first guess on those multipliers, and eventually found some curves with the right shape (where early AIP gains give more hacking-room than later AIP gains, but the curve is still smooth), but I think there are four basic questions to ask first:

1) What should the multipler be at AIP 10?

2) If not at AIP-10, when should the multiplier be 1.0 (so response would be same as it is now)?

3) What's the lowest multiplier the game should allow, so that ultra-high AIP doesn't mean "you can hack everything and it's basically free"?

4) At what AIP should that lowest multiplier be reached?

Note: for this particular purpose, AIP is simply the total positive AIP: ignoring reductions like DC kills.


In my own experiments my answers have been:

1) Between 2 and 3.

2) Between AIP-80 and AIP-120.

3) Between 0.5 and 0.3.

4) Between AIP-250 and AIP-500.


But I'm not sure I'm even looking at it correctly.  Too late at night for math

[Cinth]

My only immediate response for #2 would be; How many planets taken would be the norm.  I would guess that it would be 9 or 10.  So around an AIP of 200.  I would think that would alow the low AIP player to get some really good use out of hacking and give them a plethora of choices. 

#3 I'd cap out the response at 800 AIP ... 40 planets taken (or somewhere in there).  Even in my games, 40 planets seems to be hitting at the edge of comfort (in 10/10).

[Vyndicu]

1) What should the multipler be at AIP 10?

2) If not at AIP-10, when should the multiplier be 1.0 (so response would be same as it is now)?

3) What's the lowest multiplier the game should allow, so that ultra-high AIP doesn't mean "you can hack everything and it's basically free"?

4) At what AIP should that lowest multiplier be reached?

I have manage to get a fallen campaign up to 5 city at 300 AIP with both AI on 7. That might be considered low AIP for some people or high AIP from another point of view. I think I even went as far to hack up to high or very high from a superterminal in the same game.

I had a city hub in the same system as the superterminal so I had sniper and a full mk 1 turret cap in there so I think I manage at least 120 ticks. But then again I never manage to complete it aka kill the AI.

Oh yeah I didn't bring a super weapon in at all. Just normal spire craft + champion.

[Drjones013]

I think this calls for different AI Command Centers that give bonuses:

1) Remove 'Data Centers' and add AI Data Station (a command center type) that reduces AIP by x/y minutes when hacked; increase AIP floor by z per minute. The command center would respond locally by increasing its spawn without affecting other areas.

2) Add AI Assault Station that reduces spawning in the immediately surrounding systems; this increases AIP by x/y minutes when hacked.

3) Add AI Fabrication Station that allows for the ability to build Mk IV ships when hacked (takes x minutes); this increases AIP but the ability is permanent.

4) Add AI Subroutine Station that increases knowledge by x but costs y AIP per minute when hacked; increase AIP floor by z per minute.

5) Add AI Energy Station that increases energy pool by x when hacked; this effect last only as long as the station is being hacked and increases enemy spawns in-system.

And excetera. Basically this means that we're encouraged not to blow up systems and 'fool' the AI until we're deep striking and the AI sends MASSIVE retaliation and increases AIP (we're deep striking and AIP is supposed to be the AI's response meter. Why wouldn't it go up?). Those who want to build up large colonies and take every single system can play their way, those who want to keep AIP low can play their way, those who want to play the game as if they're fighting against a massive machine that will swat them like a bug if they show themselves can play like they're hiding from the AI.

[Vyndicu]

5) Add AI Energy Station that increases energy pool by x when hacked; this effect last only as long as the station is being hacked and increases enemy spawns in-system.

I am absolute AGAINST this station type. Why should I pay in AIP/hacking continous cost what I can already do with just measily minus 100 M/C currently?

If implemented as it is then I would just treated it as something to never hack in any game type that I play with. I can only see this being viable in a low AIP game but that also means you can't play low AIP oh wait... Causal Loop Detected Abort!!!

[_K_]

My only immediate response for #2 would be; How many planets taken would be the norm.  I would guess that it would be 9 or 10.  So around an AIP of 200.

With CPs and DCs you can easily be at 100 AIP at 10 planets. Or is the response going to be based on total AIP? Keith's words were kinda vague.

And when did it become "the norm" to have 9-10 planets? You absolutely need to capture 8, plus you have 1 homeworld, 9-10 sounds like the bare minimum. When did those ultralow-AIP games become "the norm"?
Oh wait, i know! They did that when everyone realised that ultralow-AIP approach is superior to all other strategies at every difficulty.

But can we at least pretend the game is usually played with a more territorial approach and is likely to peak at 20+ player-owned planets?
I remember back when i was doing the math for the harvester rebalance, I specifically balanced it around the idea that the player has 12+ planets by midgame, and 20+ at endgame. Dont remember those parts ever being criticised as unrealistic.

Tried to come up with a first guess on those multipliers, and eventually found some curves with the right shape (where early AIP gains give more hacking-room than later AIP gains, but the curve is still smooth), but I think there are four basic questions to ask first:

how about we double the "base" hacking response value, and set the multiplier to 1 at 10 AIP. Then it would go like multiplier = 1/(log₂(2+(AIP-10)/50). At 10 AIP it is set to 1, it goes to 0.5 at 110 AIP (current response level), and down to 0.33 at 310 AIP. By 710 AIP it goes down to 0.25 (0.5 of current response level).

Or, if you would rather use ln instead of log_ab, the formula would be ln(2)/ln(2+(aip-10)/50)

Personally, i am not too happy with this change, as it makes  hacking actually easier at 110+ AIP. And guess what? If we go with total AIP and not effective AIP, then you can be at 15 AIP and 160 total AIP (dont forget CPs increase AIP by 80). So you basically end up with more hacking options and much easier time hacking as well!

CoProcessors seem to be getting a huge indirect buff. They not only make the effective AIP lower, but actually also increase the total AIP! So far there have been no mechanic that help player based on total AIP and that was not an issue at all, but this might change.

Now, if we balance the formula for effective AIP, and not total AIP, we need to take AIP reduction into consideration, just as i have noted in the very beginning of my post.

In such situation, we would want a severe increase in AI response at low AIP (i'd suggest 4X), that goes down to 1x at around 100+ AIP.

Something like set the base response to 4x of what it is now, and the formula would be like:
multiplier = ln(1.2)/ln(1.2+(AIP-10)/100)

This one gets sets the response high for very low AIP, it becomes same as right now at around 100 AIP, goes to 0.5 of current response level at 300 AIP, and then goes down to 0.3 of current response level at 900+AIP.

But wait, if we assume the game is supposed to be balanced around having 12+ planets by midgame, we probably want the multiplier to be 0.25 (so the same as right now) at AIP-160, or even more, not

2) Between AIP-80 and AIP-120.

multiplier = ln(1.4)/ln(1.4+(AIP-10)/60)
Yeah, that's it. I like it the most. Response becomes equal to what it is right now at ~150 AIP, goes down to 0.75 of current level by 300 AIP, and down to 0.5 by 1000 AIP.

[Cinth]

Look at what #2 is... the 1.0 multiplier. I think those low AIP guys should have opportunity to hack stuff (more so than they already do because of the widened opportunities).

If you look at my post as a whole you'll see I put the min-current at 200 - 800 AIP. that is 10 - 40 planets taken form AI control.  Honestly, that might be a little loose there. 

And if you look at Keith's answers to those 4 points, you'll see my suggestion is higher than his. 

All I was trying to do was see that everyone had ample opportunity to take advantage of this mechanic (even if I don't care for it). 

Funny thing about all this is, is that I'll be able to kill 101 AI command stations then hack the super down to the floor. Just because it would be the only hack I would ever do.  <Might want to adjust this setup for 10/10 or I will cheese a 10/10 like this>.

[_K_]

Look at what #2 is... the 1.0 multiplier. I think those low AIP guys should have opportunity to hack stuff (more so than they already do because of the widened opportunities).

"Those low AIP guys" are already using the most efficient strategy in the game, why would anyone ever buff that strategy even more?

I thought our general direction was to promote higher AIP games, with all kinds of things, like more difficult AIP reduction, harder AIHWs, resource nerfs. I would be happy to see the hacking thing buff the higher AIP strategies, not the low-AIP one.

[Cinth]

Look at what #2 is... the 1.0 multiplier. I think those low AIP guys should have opportunity to hack stuff (more so than they already do because of the widened opportunities).

"Those low AIP guys" are already using the most efficient strategy in the game, why would anyone ever buff that strategy even more?

I thought our general direction was to promote higher AIP games, with all kinds of things, like more difficult AIP reduction, harder AIHWs, resource nerfs. I would be happy the hacking thing to buff the higher AIP strategies, not the low-AIP one.

I was looking to expand everyone's opportunities.  If you look at the standard low AIP game with CSG enabled, they only take 8 planets.  I put the 200 AIP low end so those guys have expanded choices.  They won't get a ton of hacks in, but this way they do have some choices in what they can do (besides K hack).

To me this isn't about buffing any one strat over another.  This is about broadening the options available to the player.

[_K_]

This is about broadening the options available to the player.

Well, there are many kinds of options.
There are optimal options, there are valid options, and then there are subpar options nobody uses.

The optimal options should be nerfed, as they make all other options subpar in comparison. This obviously results in loads of whining from people who like those options.
The inferior options need buffs, so they become valid.

Ideally, every general strategy you use in the game should be valid and winnable, but come with its set of challenges and disadvantages you need to overcome. Right, now some challenges are clearly easier than others, making some strategies superior.