So, what's standing between the current version and something official-ready?

[Faulty Logic]

Maybe the nemesis would only spawn when the HWs were under attack.

[Cinth]

It's the same reason why for FS you can't build a city if you haven't popped a CSG.

Eh? You can do the whole FS campaign without poppign a single CSG network

(and that wraith lance nasty pick post I could ONLY defeat with my spire BB guardpost killer. I wonder how others have taken down such a post. It seems made to only be killed by super weapons.)

Or something with a ton or range and immunity to radar dampening

[chemical_art]

Eh? You can do the whole FS campaign without poppign a single CSG network

That was my point. I'll elaborate. If people don't like how CSG's work for whatever reason, they'll be off before FS is enabled. The same applies for champions. You cannot tie it's difficulty to something that can be turned off very easily.

(and that wraith lance nasty pick post I could ONLY defeat with my spire BB guardpost killer. I wonder how others have taken down such a post. It seems made to only be killed by super weapons.)

Or something with a ton or range and immunity to radar dampening

Core guardposts counter anti radar dampening. The queen of all artillery like guns, the artillery golem (which ignores radar dampening) cannot hit core guard posts. You have to engage it within its radar dampening range I think, but maybe not. It would be unique among core guard posts if it could be sniped at long range though.

[Cinth]

*snip*
That was my point. I'll elaborate. If people don't like how CSG's work for whatever reason, they'll be off before FS is enabled. The same applies for champions. You cannot tie it's difficulty to something that can be turned off very easily.
*snip*
Core guardposts counter anti radar dampening. The queen of all artillery like guns, the artillery golem (which ignores radar dampening) cannot hit core guard posts. You have to engage it within its radar dampening range I think, but maybe not. It would be unique among core guard posts if it could be sniped at long range though.

If the CSG network is up when you summon the FS Exo fleet at the end, it auto-kills the networks.

Immune to Mass Drivers, Sniper shots and Artillery Ammo. Those would be the weapons with immunity potential and the range to hit and run. You might find a unit with immunity to dampening but your still going to have to get close. So yeah, the problem is finding something to soak the sweeps with so you can do damage. Me? FS DN

[Dichotomy]

Also, zombards. Not immune to radar dampening, but have a huge alpha. Minirams are still the best, though.

[keith.lamothe]

I have always argued that the ai response to champions should not be multiplicative, but additive. It makes the single HW games far to easy, and punishes high aip games far too hard.

If you make it additive, then there would not nearly be as much incentive to pursue ultra low aip games, as it would stomp that strategy hardest while not hurting other strategies relatively as hard.

I'm not sure how I would make them additive in the sense you mean.  They're already additive in the sense that each champion adds 20% to the AI's response (in most things, less than that for exos, by popular plea), not each multiplying it by 1.2.

Or you mean like having each one adding an effective +40 AIP or whatever like some AIs used do (iirc I killed that a few weeks ago) ?  Not everything is AIP-fed, but that would be a possible option.

[chemical_art]

I was aiming for additive of having as you said something along the lines of a hidden +aip amount.

Right now in practice the effect is additive. If you have 50 AIP an extra 20% is 12 aip. If you have 200 aip an extra 20% is 40 aip.  If you have 300 aip the cost is 60 aip.

Right now the ai "cost" feeds directly into the problem of trying to get players to not take the minimal worlds to avoid deepstrike.

If it was more along a flat aip cost, it would somewhat invert the situation: an extra 50 aip to claim the BB would hurt a single world game a lot (6 times the ai response if going from 10 aip to 60 aip). hurt a low aip game of 100 somewhat (50%)  but not hurt relatively as much on a game with 200 aip.

This would also benefit in that it mirrors the ship's impact on the game better. On a single planet game the champion is king and is the biggest playmaker by far. In a high aip game like fallen spire it is more like a large cog, not a playmaker.

[keith.lamothe]

So maybe the added AIP would be 0 for an FF (or 5, maybe), then 15/35/55 or something like that for DD/CA/BB.  Per champ.

For the non-AIP stuff affected by champ presence currently I'd need to figure something out, but it could be done.

What I really want to know right now is: are there any vehement objections to:

- Remove current impact of champions on AI response
- Anywhere effective AIP is used in computing an AI response, add (0|15|35|55)*number-of-champions to that AIP, depending on biggest hull size currently unlocked (not in use, but available).  This would not be shown on the AIP total since it's not really part of it.
- For any AI response that champions affected before that isn't AIP driven (FS exos are the only thing that come to mind), make it do something like it's done in the past (in that case, I think it's a 5% per champion boost, additively applied)

I kind of expect there to be objections   But worth asking.

[TechSY730]

So maybe the added AIP would be 0 for an FF (or 5, maybe), then 15/35/55 or something like that for DD/CA/BB.  Per champ.

For the non-AIP stuff affected by champ presence currently I'd need to figure something out, but it could be done.

What I really want to know right now is: are there any vehement objections to:

- Remove current impact of champions on AI response
- Anywhere effective AIP is used in computing an AI response, add (0|15|35|55)*number-of-champions to that AIP, depending on biggest hull size currently unlocked (not in use, but available).  This would not be shown on the AIP total since it's not really part of it.
- For any AI response that champions affected before that isn't AIP driven (FS exos are the only thing that come to mind), make it do something like it's done in the past (in that case, I think it's a 5% per champion boost, additively applied)

I kind of expect there to be objections   But worth asking.

Seems fine to me. Then again, the old system seemed fine to me to. In other words, I don't really care either way.

[Dichotomy]

Vehement_objection_count++;

For the 7/7 games I play, the champion strength curve correlates really well with my total normal AIP, such that I gain an advantage from the champion if I win every nebula and/or take very few planets.

[chemical_art]

It seems fine to me, but I know there will be objections.

I guess I am curious about the "why" of the objections so I can try to think of something better. For the current system is like the rest of the game except FS in that you always want low aip.

Anything that is capable to defeat the ai homeworld, whether it be golems or spire craft of the FS fleet, comes with in practice a flat aip cost. Taking a golem is 20 aip. Spirecraft I think cost at least 20 aip (idk if you can mine without planet ownership). FS in practice costs hundreds of aip.

The champion currently does not cost a flat aip amount, which is why it is so tempting to not take any aip and just pound the ai homeworlds to death with a BB.

[chemical_art]

Vehement_objection_count++;

For the 7/7 games I play, the champion strength curve correlates really well with my total normal AIP, such that I gain an advantage from the champion if I win every nebula and/or take very few planets.

What do you consider a normal total aip?

[Dichotomy]

Normal is in the 150-200 range. I have gone as high as ~600 and as low as the floor (killing only CSG worlds), but I haven't won a game above 8/8, and usually play 7/7.

[chemical_art]

I guess it would help to expand out Keith's differing ideas.

For a single champion game:

For the DD, if you had less then 75 aip when you got it, you pay more cost. If you have over 75 aip you pay less.

For the CA, if you had less then 150 aip when you got it, you pay more cost. If you have over 150 aip you pay less.

For the BB, if you had less then 275 aip when you got it, you pay more cost. If you have over 275 aip you pay less.


When I look at these it seems high, but I did notice something. Aip can be lowered by data centers, and the champion makes it fairly trivial to do so, but you can't reduce this invisibile aip of the champion itself.

[Faulty Logic]

Vehement_objection_count++;

Because none of the increases would be worth it.
20 AIP gets me a CSG, 3000 k, 150,000 operational energy, m+c income, strategic positioning, and (often) some other bonus (fab, ARS, FactIV). This would render the best strategy to include 8 frigates for no AI response, and do only one nebula.

I might accept, grudgingly, a flat additive increase (preferably something like 1 invisible AIP per five minutes until you hit a max) of about 20, but the current proposed solution would lead to the strong sense of "why do I even bother, the AI gets just as much" that other minor factions (golems and spirecraft hard) have so valiantly avoided.

I think that a nebula pacer would be better.

Or, other nasty things activated by the AI (select some, varying intensity possible):

Allow for (rare) triple waves. Also slightly increases wave frequencey.
Champion defence fund, as outlined by Techsy730.
Occasionally spawn an HK to try to kill the champ, preferably at the worst possible moment.
Have nebula enemies emerge from deep space (you gain allies, you should gain enemies).
Give the Homeworlds something iff a champion is present.
Champion nemesis.

I would strongly prefer anything in that list to an AIP increase, especially one that scales with champion level.