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

[contingencyplan]

As to the interface, I'd argue numbers are easier to reason about than vague range-based words. Additionally, the multiplier-based approach encourages postponing hacking till late game --- less a general-use resource and more a "GUN IT AND RUN IT!" endgame resource.

Say I do 2 * 80 hacking point (HP? ) hacks (dividing by 1k for simplicity):

Multiplier 1.0 for both

• Hack 0 (1.0 multiplier): start = 0 HP, end = 80 HP
• Hack 1 (1.0 multiplier): start = 80 HP, end = 160 HP

Multiplier 1.0 for first, then capture enough planets for 0.5 for second:

• Hack 0 (1.0 multiplier): start = 0 HP, end = 80 HP
• Hack 1 (0.5 multiplier): start = 80 * 0.5 = 40 HP, end = 160 * 0.5 = 80 HP

Multiplier for 0.5 for both:

• Hack 0 (0.5 multiplier): start = 0 HP, end = 80 * 0.5 = 40 HP
• Hack 1 (0.5 multiplier): start = 80 * 0.5 = 40 HP, end = 160 * 0.5 = 80 HP

This may be intentional, but the last choice is the obvious one --- I am facing a weaker response during Hack 0 and thus avoiding the (steep?) difficulty difference between the two, which makes it harder to consider the next hack based on how well the previous one went.

That said, I do like the idea of inversely tying it to AIP, just in a way that makes the "cost" of the next hack more apparent. Perhaps:

• Have a numerical HP indicator for the UI element, and a HP cost for each hack type.
• Every AIP increase would decrease HP.
  
  • Negative amounts are permitted (shown in green), and positive amounts (shown in red) cause an increased response beyond the baseline. This means that if your HP is negative, you can buy a hack (or part of one) with no increase in the AI response, but there's little benefit to hoarding HP. Essentially the same as the AIP floor but easier to reason about from the perspective of "buying" a particular hack.
• Hovering over would show the current AIP -> HP conversion ratio, which could be based on both current AIP and HP to encourage a more tit-for-tat playstyle and discouraging both hoarding and delaying hacking till the endgame.

[contingencyplan]

A few other expansion-specific hacking suggestions for later on down the line(again on my destructible capturables kick, costs are wild guesses):

• Golem Hacker: Reverse-engineers the target Golem on an AI-controlled planet. The Golem is destroyed, but is replaced by a Golem Fab that can construct that same Golem (cap limit 1). However, you have to pay the full construction costs when building it (though I don't know the repair vs construction cost ratios, so this may not work without some tweaking). In particular, this would help with micro-managing the Botnet in the face of heavy AI resistance (e.g., exos in Cinth's games ). Would obviously leave remains, with a high reconstruction cost (say 1 / 10 of the Golem's), or could add to a Golem Builder Dock.
• Spirecraft hacker: Hacks the AI network to learn how they build a particular Spirecraft without consuming the asteroid. The target asteroid is consumed and replaced by a Fab that can construct that particular Spirecraft (normal cap limit), HP cost dependent upon the asteroid and ship type, perhaps with an increased cost of construction. Remains have high reconstruction cost (say 2x the ship's), or could add a Spirecraft Dock.

I expect this is a bit too far down the line (and likely has some opposition), but wanted to toss them out while I'm thinking about them. Additionally, if it's not too much work, these hacks could also enhance the associated Exo strength as a further balance --- the AI will try to hit you harder since it can't expect to fully take away your advantage anymore.

[Drjones013]

Frankly I'd just like to see the hacking science vessel used for more than just alternate knowledge gathering. I really like the idea of hacking for resources, knowledge, and other 'consumables;' this could make for a great mechanic. It would also justify localized AI aggression without necessarily resulting in the entire galaxy trying to kill you until you REALLY tick off the AI.

FWIW: I'm one of those guys who always tries to play a high AIP game with his friends and gets molly-whomped on.

[Cinth]

You guys are funny... Want to play against me and Faulty? Fortress Baron (the great pretender) and the NRC, both on 10.  Actually, I don't think that would come close.  You wouldn't want an AI me. I'd beachhead one of your planets in the first 15 minutes and over the next 3 hours drop 16 caps worth of turrets, forts and FFs on the wormhole.  Lets not forget the Z Trader toys like the Radar Dampener II, BHG, AI, AB, Counter Spy x5, OMD, and of course finishing it up with a Superfort by around hour 6.  This is all protected by my "threat fleet".  At hour 3 you would have to deal with my Champion Fleet consisting of 8 BBs. 

Have fun with that  >D

A few other expansion-specific hacking suggestions for later on down the line(again on my destructible capturables kick, costs are wild guesses):

• Golem Hacker: Reverse-engineers the target Golem on an AI-controlled planet. The Golem is destroyed, but is replaced by a Golem Fab that can construct that same Golem (cap limit 1). However, you have to pay the full construction costs when building it (though I don't know the repair vs construction cost ratios, so this may not work without some tweaking). In particular, this would help with micro-managing the Botnet in the face of heavy AI resistance (e.g., exos in Cinth's games ). Would obviously leave remains, with a high reconstruction cost (say 1 / 10 of the Golem's), or could add to a Golem Builder Dock.
• Spirecraft hacker: Hacks the AI network to learn how they build a particular Spirecraft without consuming the asteroid. The target asteroid is consumed and replaced by a Fab that can construct that particular Spirecraft (normal cap limit), HP cost dependent upon the asteroid and ship type, perhaps with an increased cost of construction. Remains have high reconstruction cost (say 2x the ship's), or could add a Spirecraft Dock.

I expect this is a bit too far down the line (and likely has some opposition), but wanted to toss them out while I'm thinking about them. Additionally, if it's not too much work, these hacks could also enhance the associated Exo strength as a further balance --- the AI will try to hit you harder since it can't expect to fully take away your advantage anymore.

I could get behind that.  Specific exos wouldn't need a boost since the exo is based on you having those superweapons.

[keith.lamothe]

As to the interface, I'd argue numbers are easier to reason about than vague range-based words. Additionally, the multiplier-based approach encourages postponing hacking till late game --- less a general-use resource and more a "GUN IT AND RUN IT!" endgame resource.

Say I do 2 * 80 hacking point (HP? ) hacks (dividing by 1k for simplicity):

Multiplier 1.0 for both

• Hack 0 (1.0 multiplier): start = 0 HP, end = 80 HP
• Hack 1 (1.0 multiplier): start = 80 HP, end = 160 HP

Multiplier 1.0 for first, then capture enough planets for 0.5 for second:

• Hack 0 (1.0 multiplier): start = 0 HP, end = 80 HP
• Hack 1 (0.5 multiplier): start = 80 * 0.5 = 40 HP, end = 160 * 0.5 = 80 HP

Here's where our understandings diverge: I didn't mean multiplying the point gains, but rather:

Every time the game asks "based on total hacking thus far, how intense should this response be?", instead of the hacking total it uses (hackingTotal*multiplier).

So it won't matter what the AIP was at the time the previous points were gained, just what the AIP is at the moment of the response.

[KDR_11k]

I'm not sure making superweapons disposable is a good idea, even if they require some econ to replace. People build a lot of Zenith Trader structures after all.

[chemical_art]

People build a lot of Zenith Trader structures after all.

I see a lot of Zenith Trader buildings be started. I see few finishing pre 15 hours in.

[Radiant Phoenix]

People build a lot of Zenith Trader structures after all.

I see a lot of Zenith Trader buildings be started. I see few finishing pre 15 hours in.

Yeah, I think the only one I'd actually seriously try to pull off in a normal game is the ZPG.

The Superfortress is pretty sweet-looking, though, and in FS I might give it a try on my chokepoint.

[contingencyplan]

As to the interface, I'd argue numbers are easier to reason about than vague range-based words. Additionally, the multiplier-based approach encourages postponing hacking till late game --- less a general-use resource and more a "GUN IT AND RUN IT!" endgame resource.

Say I do 2 * 80 hacking point (HP? ) hacks (dividing by 1k for simplicity):

Multiplier 1.0 for both

• Hack 0 (1.0 multiplier): start = 0 HP, end = 80 HP
• Hack 1 (1.0 multiplier): start = 80 HP, end = 160 HP

Multiplier 1.0 for first, then capture enough planets for 0.5 for second:

• Hack 0 (1.0 multiplier): start = 0 HP, end = 80 HP
• Hack 1 (0.5 multiplier): start = 80 * 0.5 = 40 HP, end = 160 * 0.5 = 80 HP

Here's where our understandings diverge: I didn't mean multiplying the point gains, but rather:

Every time the game asks "based on total hacking thus far, how intense should this response be?", instead of the hacking total it uses (hackingTotal*multiplier).

So it won't matter what the AIP was at the time the previous points were gained, just what the AIP is at the moment of the response.

Well, that's what I was trying to convey, though putting it in terms of "HP" was confusing in retrospect.

My examples should be read as "the response at this point is as if the effective HP is X." For example, taking the middle one (the last one you quoted), Hack 0 starts at 0 effective HP (no hacks to this point) and finishes with a response corresponding to 80 effective HP. Then, after capturing enough planets for a 0.5 multiplier, Hack 1 starts at a response to 40 effective HP (80 actual * 0.5 multiplier) and finishes at 80 effective HP.

Is this analysis accurate, or am I still misunderstanding something?

My point being that an internal multiplier combined with a range-based "category"-style indicator both encourage postponing hacks till the end (for a smoother difficulty curve and easier hacking at the start of the sequence) and make determining the value of taking more planets vs. attempting the next hack much more difficult to ascertain --- especially important since the hacking response can kill you. My "points-based system" was one alternative that would partially address these.

One other question: what is the rationale for having a hard cap on the amount of hacking that can be done? For example, I'm playing on a 120-planet game, which in this system would both require taking more planets (I play mid-high AIP, diff 7, YMMV) and have more hackable stuff. Would the hacking response be somehow rescaled based on galaxy size? I realize it's not now, but I'd argue that besides knowledge (less important on higher planets?), there's a finite number of hacks that can be performed generally without regards to the galaxy size.

[keith.lamothe]

@contingencyplan: sorry, I misunderstood.  Anyway, my point was that the multiplier doesn't really do much to incentivize "holding it to the end" because it's just a matter of how high a response you can deal with during a specific hack.  Once the hack is done the response number stops mattering until the next hack.  So if early in the game with a 1.0 multiplier you can handle an 80 HP response and there's something you want to hack in that range, then waiting until later isn't going to help you at all.  And if you do it and later when the multiplier is 0.5 and you can handle 120 HP then you actually have 160 "raw" HP to work with ( (80+160)/2 = 120 ) for further hacks.

You may indeed want to wait until later to decide where to spend your hacking, much the same way that it's wise to hang onto some reserve Knowledge in case of surprises later.  Actually, moreso because it's got some warhead-like options that have very short-term benefits but at the end of the game sometimes all you need are some very short-term benefits to punch through the final battles and win the game.

But there would also be cases where you'd want to use it earlier.  It just depends on where you expect the main challenges to be, and whether you can afford to hold off until later, etc.

One other question: what is the rationale for having a hard cap on the amount of hacking that can be done?

Well, it's not a hard cap in the sense that at no point do you absolutely have to stop hacking.  But the AI's response just keeps getting worse so at some point you won't be able to hold it off.

For example, I'm playing on a 120-planet game, which in this system would both require taking more planets (I play mid-high AIP, diff 7, YMMV) and have more hackable stuff. Would the hacking response be somehow rescaled based on galaxy size?

Well, it could be, but in general we don't give more or less of anything based on map size.  Smaller and larger map sizes have various inherent advantages and disadvantages.  120 is generally more challenging than 80, and 20 is generally more challenging than 80.  Inbetween it's less intense.

[contingencyplan]

From here:

Off the top of my head, something like a warhead that reduces the systems firepower to zero for the purposes of the AI deciding to attack so threat comes through to me? Would cost AIP like all warheads. That would give me a way of killing that 400 threat on a planet with 1500 units without freeing any the 1100 units that are currently not threat onto threat.

Hahaha, a "Somebody Else's Problem" field-generator warhead!  Turns the entire system hot pink, so the AI assumes that dealing with the stuff on it is somebody else's problem, and therefore ignores it!  Brilliant. 

But, as much as love warheads, I think this would make better sense as a hack.  Basically you'd "hack your own planet", causing great confusion in the AI's feedback mechanisms and causing it to think that said planet was "Mostly Harmless".  Because it detects hacking there, however, it would also send a hacking-response attack in addition to whatever threat decided it could go through.  Hilarity would most likely ensue, but as long as hacking response wasn't too high and you weren't biting off more than you could chew it would probably work out in your favor.

This brings up another general question about the new hacking mechanic. In the case of hacks whose benefits can be lost, would / could you regain the points you spent on it, e.g., by destroying the resulting structure? Taking this case for example, if I decide I don't want to mask this planet from the AI anymore (could be because I took all surrounding planets, or I want to shift my whipping boy / chokepoint to here), could I get back the points I spent on that hack?

I'm not trying to start another indestructible debate (I swear); I just think that it's worth noting that the current hacks all result in permanent bonuses, and if hacking's going to be moved to a core resource, I think it'd be beneficial to have some flexibility in its usage if some of the obtained bonuses could be rendered moot.


As a related question, would adding Hacking level-reducing structures be reasonable here as well? Essentially Data Centers for the Hacking level.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Just speaking as a possible all-powerful AI that just got hacked, I really doubt I would forget that somebody hacked into my system that I desperately tried to stop; Especially if that person then destroyed the thing that he or she hacked. If anything that would just make me more angry.

[Toranth]

Just speaking as a possible all-powerful AI that just got hacked, I really doubt I would forget that somebody hacked into my system that I desperately tried to stop; Especially if that person then destroyed the thing that he or she hacked. If anything that would just make me more angry.

Unless you hacked the AI to make it forget that you'd hacked the AI...
(we can go deeper)

[Cinth]

So.... shortest straw tries to feed the AI the red pill?

[LaughingThesaurus]

Just speaking as a possible all-powerful AI that just got hacked, I really doubt I would forget that somebody hacked into my system that I desperately tried to stop; Especially if that person then destroyed the thing that he or she hacked. If anything that would just make me more angry.

Unless you hacked the AI to make it forget that you'd hacked the AI...
(we can go deeper)

If we go too deep, we create balance issues.