Author Topic: Endgame - losing  (Read 1336 times)

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Endgame - losing
« on: September 22, 2016, 10:01:42 AM »
End-game, "winning" ain't that big of a stretch.

However, losing ?
I'm currently not ok with most of the "losing" conditions in AI War classic. Maybe I missed some, but I see the following ones:
- losing to regular waves (about newbie level, or when underestimating AI when going for higher difficulty than usual)
- letting AI past your guard (raid guardians, EMP's...) => borders on newbie mistakes, and mostly not fun.
- rousing the AI's reinforcement (probably more of a newbie mistake than anything, but also happens when failing alarm posts & tractors).
- AI progress death, of which I see two main possibilities:
- - gaining voluntarily too much AIP at once, aka suiciding.
- - slow death via stalemate (situation I'd like to avoid too)
- core assault defense mechanisms
- specific anti-superweapon waves (tied to AIP)
- punchthrough waves (ie those from warp guardians, warp counterattack guard posts, and warp relays, anything that lets the AI hit planets you weren't expecting.  Backdoor Hacker and Warp Jumper AI types might also qualify)
- CPA (actually, as said below, those should be, barring exo waves, the killer move).

There are also scenario specific losing conditions like the exodian blade, if I recall well, but... I think it's out of scope of the expansion.

The only "new" option I see is this one:
Quote
Murder Metal-Poor Players (Default On)
In the event that the player has “lost but it just isn’t official yet,” the AI needs to step in and make it official so that players aren’t strung along on false hope.  If all players have next to no metal in their stockpile and no way to get more from their current planets (probably resulting from either a nuke or a dwindling resources game), then the AI should get extra killy extra fast.

I'd like the idea but that does not sound like it'd apply to regular games. Unless the AI is going to nuke everything in sight for some reason ?


So first questions: is there other new mechanics that are planned but not in the doc yet, due to the fact that the AI is actually conquering stuff now ? If yes, what ?????
Second question: If not - there's been a lot of discussion around those. Two opinions I often find around are that some don't like how the AI is passive in killing you, yet a lot seem to like/need the player setting the pace. Which I see as contradictoy. Should / could the AI be more aggressive If yes, how ?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 12:47:50 PM by kasnavada »

Offline Pumpkin

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,195
  • Neinzul Gardener Enclave
Re: Endgame - losing
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2016, 10:58:51 AM »
I would add CPA crushing (a lot of that happened to me while climbing the difficulty ladder, at several levels).

Overwhelming threat is also something, but less "normal", I would say. Players are suppose to chase the threat if it piles up. So newb mistake, I guess?
Please excuse my english: I'm not a native speaker. Don't hesitate to correct me.
Pumpkin>> Do I need another cure about paranoia on top of overexcitement?
Mal>> We play AI War, enthusiasm and paranoia are both required!

Offline tadrinth

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
Re: Endgame - losing
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2016, 12:42:40 PM »
I would add 'punchthrough' waves, ie those from warp guardians, warp counterattack guard posts, and warp relays, anything that lets the AI hit planets you weren't expecting.  Backdoor Hacker and Warp Jumper AI types might also qualify.

Fallen Spire exos are actually not tied to AIP, but otherwise those count as anti-superweapon responses.

Nuclear trains pathing through your homeworld sort of counts as 'letting the AI past your guard'. 

I think the issue, really, is that the AI should not win if you make a single mistake.  It should win when you make multiple mistakes.  For that to work, the AI needs to have a lot of stuff happening, such that responding to one attack leaves you vulnerable to another.  Shark plot would help with this.

I also agree with Pumpkin that if you don't have exos on, CPAs are what should kill you, or force you to use so many warheads that waves kill you instead.  Waves are absolutely capable of killing you nowadays if your AIP gets high enough due to the reinforcement redirection.  That mechanism might need to put more than 10% of the reinforcement strength overflow toward the next CPA, though.  I haven't dealt with enough CPAs while over 200 AIP to be able to tell. 

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Endgame - losing
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2016, 12:46:29 PM »
Fallen Spire exos are actually not tied to AIP, but otherwise those count as anti-superweapon responses.
There are also scenario specific losing conditions like the exodian blade, if I recall well, but... I think it's out of scope of the expansion.
Yes, I think you raised the point a bit earlier on the forum, yet this. Specific to the spire rebuilding scenario which is out of scope.



I would add 'punchthrough' waves, ie those from warp guardians, warp counterattack guard posts, and warp relays, anything that lets the AI hit planets you weren't expecting.  Backdoor Hacker and Warp Jumper AI types might also qualify.
Added.

I would add CPA crushing (a lot of that happened to me while climbing the difficulty ladder, at several levels).
Added.

Overwhelming threat is also something, but less "normal", I would say. Players are suppose to chase the threat if it piles up. So newb mistake, I guess?
Yes and no. Not taking regular sweeps in the AI territory to clean it up is a newbie "mistake", but being overwhelmed happens after stalemating (because you spend your time clearing threat / reconstructing and can't attack).

Offline Mánagarmr

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,271
  • if (isInRange(target)) { kill(target); }
Re: Endgame - losing
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2016, 03:34:22 AM »
CPAs were traditionally the "killer move" the AI did in order to finish off a wounded or unprepared player. That's what it was like back in AIW 2.0 when I started playing, and that's pretty much the mechanic I liked. The "death by stalemate/boredom" must be dealt with.
Click here to get started with Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports.

Thank you for contributing to making the game better!

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Endgame - losing
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2016, 04:30:41 AM »
CPAs were traditionally the "killer move" the AI did in order to finish off a wounded or unprepared player. That's what it was like back in AIW 2.0 when I started playing, and that's pretty much the mechanic I liked. The "death by stalemate/boredom" must be dealt with.

Assuming no other mechanic changes, how about... If the AI has had no set-back during the time between 2 CPA waves, CPA waves are magnified ?
Criteria for "no set-back" would be no system neutered / cleaned out, significantly rising quantity of threat ? Possibly something else ?

Offline Mánagarmr

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,271
  • if (isInRange(target)) { kill(target); }
Re: Endgame - losing
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2016, 04:39:21 AM »
Assuming no other mechanic changes, how about... If the AI has had no set-back during the time between 2 CPA waves, CPA waves are magnified ?
Criteria for "no set-back" would be no system neutered / cleaned out, significantly rising quantity of threat ? Possibly something else ?
As long as it's clearly communicated to the player that you can prevent CPAs or at least mitigate them, sure. It should not be a hidden mechanic. The player must understand WHY he's getting a boot shoved down his throat.
Click here to get started with Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports.

Thank you for contributing to making the game better!

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Endgame - losing
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2016, 04:44:33 AM »
Assuming no other mechanic changes, how about... If the AI has had no set-back during the time between 2 CPA waves, CPA waves are magnified ?
Criteria for "no set-back" would be no system neutered / cleaned out, significantly rising quantity of threat ? Possibly something else ?
As long as it's clearly communicated to the player that you can prevent CPAs or at least mitigate them, sure. It should not be a hidden mechanic. The player must understand WHY he's getting a boot shoved down his throat.
True, does not make sense in the game flow / lore.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,951
  • Fabulous
Re: Endgame - losing
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2016, 02:20:55 PM »
CPAs were traditionally the "killer move" the AI did in order to finish off a wounded or unprepared player. That's what it was like back in AIW 2.0 when I started playing, and that's pretty much the mechanic I liked. The "death by stalemate/boredom" must be dealt with.

Unless exo waves are involved they still are. Even then CPA's act as a timer of sorts that on the strategic level kept things moving forward. Especially since down the road CPA's, waves, and exo waves slowly starting getting tools that made it more likely they would occur simultaneously
Life is short. Have fun.