So, what most needs attention for 6.0?

[LordSloth]

No mention of guard posts so far?

Anyways, in addition to Teleport Raiders getting a boost, I'd like to see regular Raider fleetships get a buff. The least I would like to see is a 8 point speed boost on normal. After the fighter re-balance and special forces patrols, they just aren't fast enough to actually raid anything, IMO.

[TechSY730]

No mention of guard posts so far?

Anyways, in addition to Teleport Raiders getting a boost, I'd like to see regular Raider fleetships get a buff. The least I would like to see is a 8 point speed boost on normal. After the fighter re-balance and special forces patrols, they just aren't fast enough to actually raid anything, IMO.

Although I would love to see non-core guard posts get a buff (you can add that to the list), I feel that there are bigger issues that need attention.
Also, I also think that Raider fleet ships need some love. They have been doing "well" in the last few "what is the worst" polls, and would probably be in the top 3 in their current state if another one is kicked of soon.
At least teleport raiders have teleportation. A raider without speed can't really do much of anything...

[Kahuna]

The only thing I saw listed not in that list is that Z bombards seem overpowered in AI hands, even though they are about right in human hands. (Not sure if I agree with this, but I didn't see it on the list even though someone mentioned it)

1200 MarkII Fighters (12*cap)=lold
1200 MarkII Bombers (12*cap)=easy
1200 MarkII Missile Frigates (12*cap)=medium
230 MarkII Zombards (9*cap)=gg

[TechSY730]

Derp, I forgot this HIGHLY voted up suggestion:

3094: Teleporting units don't respect group move
It's the #4 ranked issue in the Mantis vote tallies for AI War, so LOTS of people would appreciate this.

[TechSY730]

The only thing I saw listed not in that list is that Z bombards seem overpowered in AI hands, even though they are about right in human hands. (Not sure if I agree with this, but I didn't see it on the list even though someone mentioned it)

1200 MarkII Fighters (12*cap)=lold
1200 MarkII Bombers (12*cap)=easy
1200 MarkII Missile Frigates (12*cap)=medium
230 MarkII Zombards (9*cap)=gg

If that's the case, then Zombards are just OP in general. Either that, or >human caps, EVEN IF the AI "pays" for them properly, is a MUCH more complicated factor on difficulty than we thought. (Which Lanchester's laws seems to imply that the interaction is quite involved)
I guess we would need some numbers and actual experiments to back this up concretely though.

[Draco18s]

I went back to clarify what was wrong with blade spawners, and this was the conversation:

2:04:05 PM Draco Cretel:
they are a pain in high numbers that the AI can get
2:04:08 PM Draco Cretel:
wait...
2:04:15 PM Draco Cretel:
the AI gets a hug ton too many ships as is!
2:04:30 PM Draco Cretel:
the numbers in waves is over the top and insane!
2:06:24 PM me:
I think you and I just play a game that is too-high in AIP
2:06:41 PM Draco Cretel:
which is dumb...

Essentially on lower difficulties, say the "normal" 7, the benefits the AI gets for even a moderate AIP level of, say, 250 is far and away above what the player can handle.

The AI hasn't even gotten Mark 3 units yet, and already the player can't handle the sheer strength the AI is bringing to bear.  In the "good old days" your average game of difficulty 7 could result in upwards of 700 AIP before the game became unwinnable.  And I'm comparing pure AI: golems with no exowaves, spirecraft with no exowaves, no Fallen Spire Plot.  JUST wave size and free threat.  Used to be that Mark 3 was "survivable, but risky" and the game is now at "mark 2 is downright unacceptable."

I realize that a number of things has been done to try and hit players harder when certain cheap tactics are used (i.e. single ingress) but that's even being ignored here.  I'm comparing a 700 AIP game where there was one choke point to a 250 AIP game with four.

I think in our rush to make the top-end more difficult, we've pushed the "middle 7" down to a "middle 6."  At the same time I have a wealth of resources I can't spend and often dribble across the 999,999 cap, and I've been told to "raise the difficulty level" in order to alleviate that problem.  Sorry, but the game's already in a winnable state, I don't see how moving up in difficulty is going to make that any better.

[KDR_11k]

Zombards are very long ranged, they get 1-2 volleys before your ships are in range which means your fleet is weakened by the time it gets to engage. Considering they pretty much 1-shot stuff those 230 ships mean 230-460 of your ships dead before they get to fire their first shot. Also the powerful alpha strike means that even if they get greeted right at the wormhole an equal number of your ships will only get to fire one shot before dying.

[TechSY730]

I went back to clarify what was wrong with blade spawners, and this was the conversation:

2:04:05 PM Draco Cretel:
they are a pain in high numbers that the AI can get
2:04:08 PM Draco Cretel:
wait...
2:04:15 PM Draco Cretel:
the AI gets a hug ton too many ships as is!
2:04:30 PM Draco Cretel:
the numbers in waves is over the top and insane!
2:06:24 PM me:
I think you and I just play a game that is too-high in AIP
2:06:41 PM Draco Cretel:
which is dumb...

Essentially on lower difficulties, say the "normal" 7, the benefits the AI gets for even a moderate AIP level of, say, 250 is far and away above what the player can handle.

The AI hasn't even gotten Mark 3 units yet, and already the player can't handle the sheer strength the AI is bringing to bear.  In the "good old days" your average game of difficulty 7 could result in upwards of 700 AIP before the game became unwinnable.  And I'm comparing pure AI: golems with no exowaves, spirecraft with no exowaves, no Fallen Spire Plot.  JUST wave size and free threat.  Used to be that Mark 3 was "survivable, but risky" and the game is now at "mark 2 is downright unacceptable."

I realize that a number of things has been done to try and hit players harder when certain cheap tactics are used (i.e. single ingress) but that's even being ignored here.  I'm comparing a 700 AIP game where there was one choke point to a 250 AIP game with four.

I think in our rush to make the top-end more difficult, we've pushed the "middle 7" down to a "middle 6."  At the same time I have a wealth of resources I can't spend and often dribble across the 999,999 cap, and I've been told to "raise the difficulty level" in order to alleviate that problem.  Sorry, but the game's already in a winnable state, I don't see how moving up in difficulty is going to make that any better.

I do feel that some of the buffs to the AI were "pushed down" too low, thus making 7 more difficult than it needs to be.
EDIT: However, from what I understand, the "good ol' days" of 700 AIP games being feasibly on 7-8 was a result of the game "gliding" towards an easier state than the devs wanted. In other words, that state of difficulty 7 was much easier than the devs wanted difficulty 7. This is closer to what they want. However, I agree that hitting the "OMG this is so crazy, I don't know if I can live" point at 250 AIP on difficulty 7 is too low. Some of the buffs to the AI need to be softened at the difficulty 7-7.3 level.
And yes, I remember those "good ol' days" too. My first victory (which was a co-op) finished the game at around 800 AIP. If you want that sort of scaling of difficulty, but still want to keep the AI competent in intelligence, there is always the handicaps to adjust how things scale.

Also, with the new reinforcement "preferences", I think there is a strong argument to be made to reintroduce the planetary per type caps for low cap ships, to prevent the AI from "cheesing" the overall planetary reinforcement cap by just always choosing the lower cap ships and thus "packing" the planetary cap to a much stronger degree than intended. Either that, or make the planetary reinforcement "count" towards the cap be a weighted sum, such that lower cap ships take away more "count" to their planetary reinforcement total cap than higher cap ships. Either would solve this extremely obnoxious, and now very plausible, no longer rare case.

Zombards are very long ranged, they get 1-2 volleys before your ships are in range which means your fleet is weakened by the time it gets to engage. Considering they pretty much 1-shot stuff those 230 ships mean 230-460 of your ships dead before they get to fire their first shot. Also the powerful alpha strike means that even if they get greeted right at the wormhole an equal number of your ships will only get to fire one shot before dying.

Due to their extreme usefulness in waves (because of this extreme alpha strike "burst" in damage) , maybe they should get a penalty in AI waves, sort of like the penalty bombers get?

[Kahuna]

Due to their extreme usefulness in waves (because of this extreme alpha strike "burst" in damage) , maybe they should get a penalty in AI waves, sort of like the penalty bombers get?

What? What penalty do AI Bombers have?

[Diazo]

Balance: make human ships tractored by AI ships not trigger deepstrike threat or raid engines
UI: provide way to make a specific space-dock/factory not send ships to warp gate
Mechanics: make threatballs do something else if they don't attack after a while
Unit behavior: change engineer prioritization to repair low-hp expensive stuff, quicker at switching from a full dock, etc.
Balance: give Zenith Electric Bombers bonus vs Heavy
Balance: reduce Zenith Space Time Manipulators knowledge cost
Balance: no Fabricators or Advanced Factories near wormholes
UI: have astro train attacking a command station not show a warning
Fix: Spider V fabs always seeding two per map
Fix: AI Engineers not repairing

These are the things I would upvote from your list. The rest I'm either of no opinion or does not apply to how I play.

The Wave Size vs. Ingress points I am going to start a thread on, I want to get feedback specific to that from people before I start pushing for changes to it.

D.

[TechSY730]

Due to their extreme usefulness in waves (because of this extreme alpha strike "burst" in damage) , maybe they should get a penalty in AI waves, sort of like the penalty bombers get?

What? What penalty do AI Bombers have?

There is a "usefulness in AI waves" multiplier, which is a bit of a strange name, but bombers get a .8x, I think missile frigates and standard fighters get a 1.1x, and neinzul younglings get a 1.5x.

Basically, this number is multiplied to the count after all the other calculations are done. So the AI will get less bombers than it normally would, and more standard fighters than it normally would, etc. As Z bombards are especially useful for "alpha strike stuff around the wormhole" to a near insane degree, in a way that, so far, no other fleet ship type really has, it may be worthwhile to give them a .8x or something.

Also, I do feel that the multipliers for the missile frigates and standard fighters could use a review. Especially the frigates, as they are actually decent at offense. (I say just make frigates have a 1x, which is the default, and leave the bomber and standard fighter ones as they are now)

[Draco18s]

I do feel that some of the buffs to the AI were "pushed down" too low, thus making 7 more difficult than it needs to be.
EDIT: However, from what I understand, the "good ol' days" of 700 AIP games being feasibly on 7-8 was a result of the game "gliding" towards an easier state than the devs wanted. In other words, that state of difficulty 7 was much easier than the devs wanted difficulty 7. This is closer to what they want. However, I agree that hitting the "OMG this is so crazy, I don't know if I can live" point at 250 AIP on difficulty 7 is too low. Some of the buffs to the AI need to be softened at the difficulty 7-7.6 level.
And yes, I remember those "good ol' days" too. My first victory (which was a co-op) finished the game at around 800 AIP. If you want that sort of scaling of difficulty, but still want to keep the AI competent in intelligence, there is always the handicaps to adjust how things scale.

I can agree that maybe it was too easy before, but the difference required in play-style between then and now is so vast that it's actually turned off a number of my friends who own the game.

[keith.lamothe]

I'm not sure what the difference in the experience is, but I haven't heard of or personally experienced 250 AIP on Diff 7 being impossible (in fact, in one MP game we were fine at diff 8 with hybrids and stuff on until about AIP 300 or so), until now.  Though I may be forgetting something.  There have been many buffs to the higher difficulties but I've tried pretty hard to make most of those have a very small effect (if that) on lower difficulties.  Some of the ones I have made apply further down have been by request (the mixed-mark waves thing, notably).

400? 500?  Yea, probably gonna die. 250 should be fine.  But there's probably something else going on here.

[Hearteater]

Yeah, I don't find 250 much of an issue either up to around 8/8+.  What was causing the problem in 7/7 at 250?  Reinforcements?  Waves?  Special Forces?  Exos?

[Draco18s]

Yeah, I don't find 250 much of an issue either up to around 8/8+.  What was causing the problem in 7/7 at 250?  Reinforcements?  Waves?  Special Forces?  Exos?

For that particular game?

Free threat.  I don't know where-from (that's one of those things about free threat: you don't know where it came from by the time you see its effects), but it was on the order of 3000 ships camping wormholes.

We couldn't do anything about it; hitting it with lightning warheads only solved the problem temporarily.  We couldn't throw a guardian at it, they'd simply leave (and om nom through three systems).

Keep in mind, I turn exowaves off because they exacerbate problems.  They themselves aren't an issue, but dealing with them depletes your fleet, and building back up again takes about as long as it does for another exowave to spawn, giving you no time between waves to do anything else.