View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0022018 | AI War 2 | Note To Test | Oct 30, 2019 2:23 pm | Oct 31, 2019 7:47 pm | |
| Reporter | RocketAssistedPuffin | Assigned To | |||
| Severity | minor | ||||
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 1.003 Sortable Objectives | ||||
| Summary | 0022018: AIP Reducers to cause less on higher difficulties: | ||||
| Description | For Chris. @RocketAssistedPuffin "It used to be there were less reducers on the higher difficulties, but you removed that I recall Chris? That is however different." I'm tempted to make them work less effectively based on the highest difficulty level of the AI, so that even super-terminals just work not as well. But the number of reducers would be the same. Otherwise super-terminals become extra important like in the first game. Notes from Classic: Data Center: 20 (15 on Diff 8+, 10 on Diff 9+). Co Processor Reduction: 120 (105 on Diff 8+, 90 on Diff 9+) (after all destroyed (note the last one did not cause the increase in Classic, but does here, so it reduces by 140 to compensate). | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
What if instead of nerfing AIP reducers, you made them harder to exploit on harder difficulties? This is more work to implement, but I think it makes for better design. Let's take the case of data centers. Right now they're pretty easy to crack due to their defenses being pretty much just what is on the planet. Even if the planet's forces are formidable, it's not usually hard to slip past these to pop the data center. But what if each data center had a percentage chance of a dedicated defensive mechanic? (which itself could vary). One defensive mechanic could be a hardened shield which requires sustained damage to take down (via a damage cap that limited the damage it could take in a given time), so that it couldn't be bursted down. Another defensive mechanic could be a protective teleporter which teleported away the data center to a random AI-controlled planet soon after enemy forces were spotted on the planet (requiring it to be taken down quickly or you lose the opportunity at that system). Another could be a tankier version of the data center which is like a fortress with turrets, so that it could give the player a challenge in defending itself. And so on. On higher difficulties, this percentage chance could be raised, and the likelihood of nastier defenses for the data center could be heightened. If adopted, an advantage of this approach is that it wouldn't need to be implemented all at once, as it could be progressively augmented as time & focus permitted. |
|
|
I kinda agree that just changing the AIP reduction on higher difficulties feels a bit cheap. I never really liked it in AIWC. I think it would be better to come up with something more interesting. Edit: What if we had both Data Centers and Fortified Data Centers (basically an AI superfortress but that gives -20 AIP) in games < 7, we seed only data centers in >= 7, we start replacing a lot of Data Centers with Fortified Data Centers and on 10 it's only fortified data centers Edit: And for co-processors, what if we spawned 5 or 6 co-processors instead of 4 on higher difficulty, so it would be +100 - 140 = - 40, or +120 - 140 = -20. |
|
|
I share Badger's distaste for making data centers less effective at higher difficulties--AIP reduction is a crucial gameplay component across difficulties and should feel rewarding across levels. You could accomplish the same effect by raising the AIP costs incurred, which would be more tolerable I think the "fortified" data center is a neat solution. Slows the pacing and rush to get all data centers across the map, which I think is a positive for the general flow of a campaign Adding additional co-processors reduces the overall AIP reduction which is another iteration artificially making AIP reduction feel less impactful. 40 or 20 isn’t that exciting for the effort involved Moreover, you can raise the AI threshold inadvertently in the process of killing the co-processors, so it already comes with a cost I'm not sure co-processors need to be fortified because these have a built-in time delay before they are beneficial. Co-processors used to be more dangerous to keep alive on your planet... perhaps this should be reintroduced in some fashion |
|
|
The one problem I can see with the Fortified (with guns) version is...if it has guns, then factions will just sit there and ignore it, being shot at. |
|
|
Could have them sleep until shot as a simple workaround to that, Puffin. Its an interesting idea, reminds me of some of the old Command Station variants from classic that could really make you have a terrible time of things. My 0.02 would be to try and seed one for each other planet tier (aka, Tier 1, 3, 5, and 7.) This stops them from being too strong and unkillable mid game, or too weak and boring late game. |
|
|
I think there is mention of a "revenge" mechanic in the C#, but far as I know it is incomplete. |
|
|
I could make the progress reducers owned by an "invisible" faction that looks just like the AI, but is only hostile toward the player. |
|
|
Another approach would be to buff the Hull/Shield of data centers on higher levels, so they are harder to drive raid. That way you can get the AIP, but you have to commit more to make it happen (against a harder enemy). |
|
|
I'd approach this with AIP Floor. Whether scaling changes or not according to difficulty is up to you, but I could see the floor escalating faster to the Mk2 (100) level, slowing at the Mk3 (220) level, and evening out as full bonus from there on. This would force the player out of the comfortable turtle of pre 100, particularly when they end up with 10+ planets without escalating mark. Even difficulty 9 I found the intro WAY too smooth through mid game |
|
|
I think though the AIP minimization strategy is terribly broken and ruins the intention of constantly being pressed by the AI. Perhaps even another strategy would be for escalating hunter fleets even if you're holding back AIP |
|
|
A decision will need to be made regarding the issues of minimizing AIP. Specifically, what paradigms does AIW2 want to pursue? Does it want to allow extended periods of minimal AIP, or does it want to restrict this to a significantly limited period? Does it want to mostly leave the player alone while AIP is low, or does it want to still have the chance of putting them in significant danger even when they have not acted? This is ultimately about whether AIW2 wants to increase pressure on the player by default rather than having the pressure primarily depend on the players' decisive actions. I sympathize with NB's concern about minimizing AIP--particularly because it feels like an optimal strat and you feel too comfortable. But this is a dangerous thing to mess with, especially at such an early stage of release when many new players are trying out the game. My current opinion is that pressure mechanics to restrict or eliminate AIP minimization ought to be included but optional, and left off by default. Then if the need for them becomes more credible (i.e., demanded by more of the player base), some of them can be converted to being on by default. However, I certainly oppose their being forced on players w/out the option to turn them off, since some players do not at all enjoy that kind of pressure. |
|
|
Keep in mind you can always use the Custom game lobby to seed fewer AIP reducing structures. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 30, 2019 2:23 pm | RocketAssistedPuffin | New Issue | |
| Oct 31, 2019 12:08 am | Apthorpe | Note Added: 0054189 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 12:44 am | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0054192 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 12:58 am | BadgerBadger | Note Edited: 0054192 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 1:09 am | BadgerBadger | Note Edited: 0054192 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 1:40 am | ZeusAlmighty | Note Added: 0054194 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 7:53 am | RocketAssistedPuffin | Note Added: 0054195 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 9:16 am | StarKelp | Note Added: 0054196 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 9:44 am | RocketAssistedPuffin | Note Added: 0054198 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0054201 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 12:05 pm | donblas | Note Added: 0054204 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 4:23 pm | NB_FlankStrike | Note Added: 0054210 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 4:35 pm | NB_FlankStrike | Note Added: 0054215 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 7:29 pm | Apthorpe | Note Added: 0054227 | |
| Oct 31, 2019 7:47 pm | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0054228 |
