A few observations

[Aquohn]

Phew, it's been a long while since I last posted here. OK, so I was reading through the patch notes (and there are a LOT of them), and for now, just two quick observations:

1) Is there a reason why more hacking progress is supposed to be better? I mean, wouldn't it be more intuitive to reverse the sign, so that large numbers of AIP and HP are considered bad?

2) While I've personally never faced Lightning Torpedo Frigates from the AI before, does the ship-corruption mechanic make up for the cheesiness of the thing in AI hands? By which I mean, does the ship-corruption mechanic rebalance the game enough such that we can give it back to the AI?

Yeah, that's it for now. Looks like I've got a bit of catching up to do on these forums (dammit, exams...).

[Tridus]

Hacking Progress is a resource, in that it's something you can spend. "Hacking Progress" may not be the best name for it because of that, but I think the measurement itself is correct in that more is better.

[LordSloth]

While it is still in a fairly early formative stage... both hacking and my little proposal here
What do you think of this possible naming scheme
Hacking Tolerance (effective HP=total AIP-Hacks Done)
Hacking Progress (total HP consumed)
Total Hacking Resource (AIP)

The bar would list Hacking Tolerance. Hovering over it would list the following in a tooltip.
Total Hack Resource is Total AIP (X)
Hacking Progress
# of ARS Hacks (next hack cost= Y)
# of Fab Hacks  (next hack cost= Z)
etc, listing the number of hacks done, estimated cost of next hack of that type.

Given that games can range from four hours to a quick co-op eight hours to sixteen hours to the atypical sixty four hours, it might be a stretch to assume that each player can remember what was done previously, and that might be important depending on how the cost of successive hacks rise.

[Aeson]

Regarding point number 2:
While I also have never faced Lightning Torpedo Frigates in AI hands, I would expect that something that was bad enough in AI hands that it was simply disabled for the AI would not have its problems "solved" by the addition of a 'disable ship-type' hack. For one thing, if I understand the patch notes that added that particular hack correctly, there's no guarantee that any of the Ship Design Servers would necessarily have that ship stored on them. For another, it's possible that by the time you found such a server, a sufficient number of LTFs would have built up in the Special Forces and system defenses to make hacking that server impractical, impossible, or ineffective - it doesn't really matter to me if the AI can't deploy any more LTFs if it already has so many that I can't whittle the numbers down in a non-boring or non-suicidal fashion (yes, a Mark III Nuke would probably solve most of the low-mark ship issues, unless LTFs are immune to nukes, but I think that most of us would agree that using anything more than a Mark I Nuke is relatively impractical, and that using a Mark III Nuke is insane, although I will admit that it's unlikely to result in a boring game). That's my take on it, anyways.

[LaughingThesaurus]

I would say I agree with LordSloth, in that HaP should be just changed to Hacking Tolerance. It makes a lot more sense that way. The more tolerance you have, the better. 0 tolerance is pretty bad. Less than 0 tolerance means you're essentially dead.

[Aquohn]

While it is still in a fairly early formative stage... both hacking and my little proposal here
What do you think of this possible naming scheme
Hacking Tolerance (effective HP=total AIP-Hacks Done)
Hacking Progress (total HP consumed)
Total Hacking Resource (AIP)

The bar would list Hacking Tolerance. Hovering over it would list the following in a tooltip.
Total Hack Resource is Total AIP (X)
Hacking Progress
# of ARS Hacks (next hack cost= Y)
# of Fab Hacks  (next hack cost= Z)
etc, listing the number of hacks done, estimated cost of next hack of that type.

Given that games can range from four hours to a quick co-op eight hours to sixteen hours to the atypical sixty four hours, it might be a stretch to assume that each player can remember what was done previously, and that might be important depending on how the cost of successive hacks rise.

Seconded. This would clear things up significantly.

Regarding point number 2:
While I also have never faced Lightning Torpedo Frigates in AI hands, I would expect that something that was bad enough in AI hands that it was simply disabled for the AI would not have its problems "solved" by the addition of a 'disable ship-type' hack. For one thing, if I understand the patch notes that added that particular hack correctly, there's no guarantee that any of the Ship Design Servers would necessarily have that ship stored on them. For another, it's possible that by the time you found such a server, a sufficient number of LTFs would have built up in the Special Forces and system defenses to make hacking that server impractical, impossible, or ineffective - it doesn't really matter to me if the AI can't deploy any more LTFs if it already has so many that I can't whittle the numbers down in a non-boring or non-suicidal fashion (yes, a Mark III Nuke would probably solve most of the low-mark ship issues, unless LTFs are immune to nukes, but I think that most of us would agree that using anything more than a Mark I Nuke is relatively impractical, and that using a Mark III Nuke is insane, although I will admit that it's unlikely to result in a boring game). That's my take on it, anyways.

Hmm. I suppose that's a valid concern. But I guess it just seems contrary to the spirit of AI War to simply hard-counter a balance problem by keeping a ship out of AI hands. I'd really like to have some way to balance LTFs out so that both AIs and human players can use it without applying any special rules.

[Tridus]

It wouldn't be the first time. The AI doesn't have Riot or Protector Starships either.

[Bones]

It wouldn't be the first time. The AI doesn't have Riot or Protector Starships either.

The AI gets Riots in Exos and I've had a few AIs roll protector starships (not sure if I've seen them in waves though.) Although they don't get enclaves, they do get enclave guardians.

Edit:also;

It is weird that Hacking Progress is only a variable that determines hacking strength, and not the actual hacking strength, it's a little tricky figuring out what's going on.

[Draco18s]

A few other units the AI and Human versions don't match.

Forts, raid starships, spire blade spawners...

[Zair]

Perhaps this is just me being silly, but the current Hacking Progress (security flaws still waiting to be used) could simply be called 'bugs' or 'unpatched bugs' 'zero-day exploits' or something like that. The more we hack, the more debugging the AI does to cover its behind.

But, y'know ... I'm silly.