0009396: After waiting a long time on a wormhole, threat should "reroll" which planet to stalk - Arcen Idea Tracker (Bugs and Features)

ID	Project	Category		Date Submitted	Last Update

0009396	AI War 1 / Classic	Suggestion - AI Behavior And Tactics		Aug 29, 2012 12:01 am	Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm

Reporter	TechSY730	Assigned To	keith.lamothe
Severity	minor
Status	resolved	Resolution	fixed
Product Version	5.073
Fixed in Version	5.090

Summary	0009396: After waiting a long time on a wormhole, threat should "reroll" which planet to stalk
Description	Credit should also go to Hearteater, who also independently came up with this idea. Copied from http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,11378.msg116344.html#msg116344 I would agree with making freed AI ships that have been waiting at a wormhole > N time "reroll" their target planet (which may choose the same planet again, which is fine. That would allow some buildup of threat, but overall spread out threat better). Also, that >N time should checked on a global timer, not a per ship timer, as otherwise individual ships would start bleeding off and then often times wind up doing nothing. If instead, the AI "batched" their checks (maybe check for ships waiting for >N time every N time interval?), you would typically see them group much better. This would fall apart some if you have lots of border planets though... I thought I posted idea on mantis a long time ago, but it doesn't look like I did.
Tags	No tags attached.

Internal Weight	Feature Suggestion

Hearteater Aug 29, 2012 9:28 am reporter ~0028049	I had to read my own thread to remember what I suggested :) . I think the below link gets to the post in question better. The paragraph under the heading THREAT is the one for this mantis issue. http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,11378.msg116328.html#msg116328

TechSY730 Aug 29, 2012 11:36 am reporter ~0028052	Hmm, any idea about how long N should be? Or how long the interval between the "batch" checks for ships that have waiting >N time? (Expressing this in terms of N is fine)

Hearteater Aug 29, 2012 12:12 pm reporter ~0028053	I'm guessing around 20-30 minutes for checks would work reasonably well. Threat already reacts very quickly to pulling firepower out of a system. This is really more of a strategic action, and I think the 20-30 minute time frame is enough time to keep the AI from feeling like it has ADD.

Soyweiser Sep 2, 2012 10:28 am reporter ~0028127	You could also add a check every time the AIP is increased.

keith.lamothe Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm administrator ~0028598	For 5.090: * Since "make the threatballs fish or cut bait" was 0000001 on the second round of the 6.0 poll: Threat ships behave as they used to for about 30 minutes after being freed, but after that they are switched to an alternate "Threat Fleet" behavior that is somewhat similar to the new Special Forces mechanic. * Note: this only happens on Difficulty 7+, as it's not the AI getting anything extra, it's just behaving more intelligently (in theory) with what it has. If an AI homeworld or core world is under attack, the threat fleet will rally to defend it. Otherwise, if it sees an accessible non-AI planet with a significant human presence that it thinks it can take out, it goes to attack that (it will still pool up at the entry wormhole in some cases, until enough of them are there to pass the threshold, so they don't march in to the grinder one-by-one). Otherwise, it picks a planet in AI territory to hang out at until either of the two above conditions are met. If a carrier is spontaneously formed from ships that have a significant threat-fleet population, the carrier (and anything it spawns) is also considered threat-fleet. Not exactly what any one request was going for, iirc, but I think this will make that threat at least more interesting. Thanks for the feedback :)

Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
Aug 29, 2012 12:01 am	TechSY730	New Issue
Aug 29, 2012 9:28 am	Hearteater	Note Added: 0028049
Aug 29, 2012 11:36 am	TechSY730	Note Added: 0028052
Aug 29, 2012 12:12 pm	Hearteater	Note Added: 0028053
Sep 2, 2012 8:03 am	TechSY730	Relationship added	related to 0007016
Sep 2, 2012 10:28 am	Soyweiser	Note Added: 0028127
Sep 3, 2012 8:54 pm	TechSY730	Relationship added	related to 0009465
Sep 4, 2012 3:51 pm	tigersfan	Internal Weight	=> Feature Suggestion
Sep 4, 2012 3:51 pm	tigersfan	Status	new => considering
Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm	keith.lamothe	Note Added: 0028598
Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm	keith.lamothe	Status	considering => resolved
Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm	keith.lamothe	Fixed in Version	=> 5.090
Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm	keith.lamothe	Resolution	open => fixed
Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm	keith.lamothe	Assigned To	=> keith.lamothe