(Thought Exercise) Reduce knowledge to reduce AIP scaling.

[chemical_art]

The purpose was that for the same amount of AI aggression, you get the same amount of k, but more planets, and thus either better map position or more capturables.

On some level, though, the issue is that the amount of player progression (K) is so quickly overtaken by the amount of AI response (AIP).

So by reducing both, you are making low AIP games so much more valuable, because you get. So. Much. Base. K. in a the ultra low aip cost. You would have to reduce base K as well. What is the use in making AIP response 10x stronger so you can get double the K? (In the case of having 10k base K and getting 2k K per planet)

EDIT: to put it another way, the rate of player progress does not overtake AI progress enough, so low AIP games trump all. Lowering both does make higher aip games more viable, but since it makes low aip games more viable too, it does nothing to address the underlying issues.

[Faulty Logic]

Do those issues still exist as of "Lazy-AI"? I think choosing to play with it off is considered outright cheese now, and that toggle pretty effectively puts the kibosh on low-AIP to the end.

What is the use in making AIP response 10x stronger so you can get double the K? (In the case of having 10k base K and getting 2k K per planet)

Using your homeworld as a baseline comparison is not meaningful. I think more of " ok, I've captured the planets I need to to knock out the CSGs. Now, what additional planets should I take?"
There are different responses before and after the change.

the rate of player progress does not overtake AI progress enough, so low AIP games trump all.

Again, low-AIP got a pretty solid whack with the nerfbat as of 6.017.

[chemical_art]

Do those issues still exist as of "Lazy-AI"? I think choosing to play with it off is considered outright cheese now, and that toggle pretty effectively puts the kibosh on low-AIP to the end.

What is the use in making AIP response 10x stronger so you can get double the K? (In the case of having 10k base K and getting 2k K per planet)

Using your homeworld as a baseline comparison is not meaningful. I think more of " ok, I've captured the planets I need to to knock out the CSGs. Now, what additional planets should I take?"
There are different responses before and after the change.

the rate of player progress does not overtake AI progress enough, so low AIP games trump all.

Again, low-AIP got a pretty solid whack with the nerfbat as of 6.017.

Low AIP games got a "soft counter". Which I like.

What I mean is that lowering both the K and the AIP response simply doesn't address any underlying issues.  When you get 10K base K, 2K per additional planet is simply not very appealing. Remember, any comparisions to CSG's is a no go, since anyone who uses low aip games didn't use CSG anyone to begin with.

[Faulty Logic]

Remember, any comparisions to CSG's is a no go, since anyone who uses low aip games didn't use CSG anyone to begin with.

No. I have played more than a few games that started with CSGs on, and then took the absolute minimum number of planets.

I still see this as a strong incentive to take more planets, not fewer.

10,000 k is nowhere near enough to win.
The AIP/k ratio is unchanged.
I still get all the non-k benefits of whatever planet.

So taking a planet is more attractive.

If I stay low the whole game, my endgame is outright nightmarish.

[chemical_art]

Remember, any comparisions to CSG's is a no go, since anyone who uses low aip games didn't use
10,000 k is nowhere near enough to win.

You see, since we cannot agree on that, everything else is mot.

100k is plenty.

[keith.lamothe]

Remember, any comparisions to CSG's is a no go, since anyone who uses low aip games didn't use
10,000 k is nowhere near enough to win.

You see, since we cannot agree on that, everything else is mot.

10k is plenty.

@chemical_art, are you saying that you can win a game with only spending 10,000 K (or maybe 13,000 K due to the HW's contribution)?  Even with non-lazy AI?

Even on Diff 7 I'd consider that alarming.  On 8+ I'd consider that a major balance problem.

Edit: wait, now your post says 100k.  Which I would agree is plenty, but Faulty was talking about 10k.  <developer-confused>

[TechSY730]

If you have good micro skills and patience, then yes, you could win with only 10k + 3k knowledge (though possibly not with lazy AI off)

With lazy AI off, an additional planet or two (in addition to the aforementioned micro and patience) should bring it to the winnable state.

Both if these are for difficulty 8. Probably would not work so great in difficulty 9.6


What chemical_art said is correct though. The difference between the human and the AI growth curves is itself "messed up". By scaling both curves the same amount, the difference is unchanged, and thus the "issue" isn't really "solved". I was hoping that "base" AI strength could go up (which the new non-lazy AI partially addresses) in return for AI strength growth rate going down a little.
This may require some nerfing of human initial strength and/or strength per planet (but not as much as the AI) to accomplish, IDK.

The whole energy thing also ties into this intricately, as pointed out earlier.

[Faulty Logic]

I would be far happier with buffing the initial AI strength (with possibly a significant time delay before the first waves arrive, to prevent instadeath) than nerfing the starting k.

The curves may not be perfect, but I'm sure that we want the AI gaining strength faster than the human at some fairly low planet number (like ~12), to preserve the core of the game.

I would like to point out that k isn't the only factor in human strength, though it is the most important.

[Fluffiest]

Faulty, why would you rather buff the AI than reduce starting K?

[Faulty Logic]

Because I'm used to 10,000 k. Really, really used to it.

And because its feasible to get more k without more AIP (Archives, hacking), so this would better treat the root cause.

[Hearteater]

Faulty, why would you rather buff the AI than reduce starting K?

Because reducing starting K doesn't make you weaker really.  I don't need 13K to start against even 9/9.  I'll get enough K taking the minimum number of planets to remove CSGs that I'll be fine.  I really don't spend much more than a few thousand to start with besides harvesters.  Once I'm a few worlds in I won't even notice the starting K reduction.  You simply don't have enough energy to warrant spending 13K off the bat, so you're waiting until you get more worlds anyway.  The only thing a K reduction will cost me is economy via Harvesters, which just slows me down.  It doesn't impact my performance against the AI.

[chemical_art]

What chemical_art said is correct though. The difference between the human and the AI growth curves is itself "messed up". By scaling both curves the same amount, the difference is unchanged, and thus the "issue" isn't really "solved". I was hoping that "base" AI strength could go up (which the new non-lazy AI partially addresses) in return for AI strength growth rate going down a little.
This may require some nerfing of human initial strength and/or strength per planet (but not as much as the AI) to accomplish, IDK.

The whole energy thing also ties into this intricately, as pointed out earlier.

However flawed my presentation, this was my core.

The curves of Human to AI power is very sharp. So the goal is AIP low, at all costs. Lazy AI helps to address this a lot, but at its core it is a bandaid the underlying issue.

[keith.lamothe]

Actually, I think Matter Converters are a problem.  Currently, I don't really need to make any choices with regards to energy.  Since I can trade M+C for Energy, and since I have effectively infinite time, I can trade M+C income down to very low levels and support max cap of everything I have.  It takes forever to rebuild, but for maximum power I'm encouraged to do that.

Since CPAs have a minimum effective AIP that increases with time, you don't have infinite time, but perhaps it's not steep enough that you're worried about it in your scenarios.

Worse, I can micro a refleet by destroying a chunk of Matter Converters to up my refleet speed until I hit my energy ceiling.

That's not ideal, no, but at least you'd be somewhat more vulnerable to brownouts during that time.  Though perhaps not by much.

Another observation is each planet produces K Knowledge.  On average each point of Knowledge unlocks something that requires X Energy to support.  Each Energy Collector produces E Energy.  If E / K > X then Energy is largely pointless.  If E / K < X then Knowledge is largely pointless.  Basically, Knowledge and Energy are currently the same.  You get a fixed amount of each per planet (ignore Matter Converters because they just make Energy completely irrelevant).

There's something to that, but:

1) K, once spent, cannot be redirected.  E can.

2) Not all units have the same K/power and E/power ratios.  Fortresses are notable for this.

3) Running out of K can leave you without flexibility.  Running out of E can leave you dead.

4) A lot of units come with no K cost (mkI triangle and initial bonus type, most mkI starships and turrets, spirecraft, golems, some FS ships, post-nebula faction ships, etc) and rely on E for "population balance".


@chemical_art on the AI power curve vs the human power curve, and @Valtiel on the benefit-received-per-planet: I think both those perspectives are looking at it the wrong way.  From a "I want to win" perspective there's only one question you need to ask to determine whether you want to take another planet: "Do I need to take another planet to be able to kill the AI Home Command Stations?".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's absolutely no other in-game reason (i.e. not "because it's fun", that's valid but it doesn't bear directly on balance) to take a planet or do anything else that causes AIP.  Well, aside from "Do I need to take another planet to keep the AI from killing my Home Command Station?", but that seems to be a rarer thing and as has been pointed out generally taking another planet isn't going to give a net positive on your defensive situation, and if it consistently did then you could just take all the planets.

So the point isn't how much you get from taking another planet, or how much the AI gets if you take another planet, the point is whether you need more to win.  Whether it's because the CSGs are on and you literally need to take those planets to be able to attack the AI HCSs, or because Lazy-AI is off and you effectively need more K or E or whatever to have any realistic chance at taking down the AI HCS defenses before it kills you, or whatever.

If you don't have what you need to take down the HCSs, then you need more planets (or something; hacking or superweapons or whatever).  Doesn't matter how much you'd gain from the planet or how much the AI would (if the AI would gain more such that you'd be further from winning, you've probably simply lost).

If you do have what you need to take down the HCSs (including position), then there's no reason to take more planets.  Doesn't matter how much you'd gain from the planet or how much the AI would.

[Fluffiest]

Good point. When you've got the bare minimum of stuff you need to take down the AI homeworlds, why take any other planets?

Serious question. I think we need to have an answer to that before we decide what to do with strategic balance.

[chemical_art]

...you effectively need more K or E or whatever to have any realistic chance at taking down the AI HCS defenses before it kills you, or whatever.

On some level, this is core.

AI HW are sieges. Meaning if you can chip them away faster then they can regen, well, time is meaningless in ultra low AIP games. It is why I can still cheese low aip champ games. Sure, they have nemesis, but I can chip away 10% of your health each "volley", and each "volley" takes more health away then is regened per volley, eventually I win.


Idea: Follow your idea with the nebulas vaguely. Each time a core guardpost is knocked out, the HW releases a pulse of units on its planet, in the form of free threat. This pulse is meant to flood enough threat to knock out ultra low aip games, but not higher aip games.


EDIT: Make it devious, and make the units "special" in that they are meant to be siege breakers, also known as fortress world breakers. I'm thinking hunter killer (s) here for 7+ difficulties.