1
AI War / Re: Steam keys for Ancient Shadows
« on: May 11, 2013, 12:18:28 AM »
Sent my receipt in, waiting for a response.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
AI War / Re: Nominations for new Bonus Ships for the "Vengeance of the Machine" expansion
« on: May 03, 2013, 02:55:06 PM »
Controller Frigate - Low damage, average hit points, fast speed
The AI takes control of any ship that gets within x distance, loses control when the ship takes damage for y seconds. In human hands it'd do the same. Triangle ships and 'capital' ships are immune to the effect.
The AI takes control of any ship that gets within x distance, loses control when the ship takes damage for y seconds. In human hands it'd do the same. Triangle ships and 'capital' ships are immune to the effect.
3
AI War / Re: Nearly impossible to attack at 400 AIP and... diff 7
« on: April 11, 2013, 01:24:53 AM »
Wow, I might actually be able to convince my friends to play AI War again if this keeps up (they typically will play a mid to high AIP game).
Hopefully something good comes out of this!
Hopefully something good comes out of this!
4
AI War / Re: So, this whole crystal thing (wait I think I used that title already...)
« on: April 11, 2013, 01:14:06 AM »
Frankly I'd just like to see the hacking science vessel used for more than just alternate knowledge gathering. I really like the idea of hacking for resources, knowledge, and other 'consumables;' this could make for a great mechanic. It would also justify localized AI aggression without necessarily resulting in the entire galaxy trying to kill you until you REALLY tick off the AI.
FWIW: I'm one of those guys who always tries to play a high AIP game with his friends and gets molly-whomped on.
FWIW: I'm one of those guys who always tries to play a high AIP game with his friends and gets molly-whomped on.
5
AI War / Re: So, this whole crystal thing (wait I think I used that title already...)
« on: April 10, 2013, 01:23:08 AM »
I think this calls for different AI Command Centers that give bonuses:
1) Remove 'Data Centers' and add AI Data Station (a command center type) that reduces AIP by x/y minutes when hacked; increase AIP floor by z per minute. The command center would respond locally by increasing its spawn without affecting other areas.
2) Add AI Assault Station that reduces spawning in the immediately surrounding systems; this increases AIP by x/y minutes when hacked.
3) Add AI Fabrication Station that allows for the ability to build Mk IV ships when hacked (takes x minutes); this increases AIP but the ability is permanent.
4) Add AI Subroutine Station that increases knowledge by x but costs y AIP per minute when hacked; increase AIP floor by z per minute.
5) Add AI Energy Station that increases energy pool by x when hacked; this effect last only as long as the station is being hacked and increases enemy spawns in-system.
And excetera. Basically this means that we're encouraged not to blow up systems and 'fool' the AI until we're deep striking and the AI sends MASSIVE retaliation and increases AIP (we're deep striking and AIP is supposed to be the AI's response meter. Why wouldn't it go up?). Those who want to build up large colonies and take every single system can play their way, those who want to keep AIP low can play their way, those who want to play the game as if they're fighting against a massive machine that will swat them like a bug if they show themselves can play like they're hiding from the AI.
1) Remove 'Data Centers' and add AI Data Station (a command center type) that reduces AIP by x/y minutes when hacked; increase AIP floor by z per minute. The command center would respond locally by increasing its spawn without affecting other areas.
2) Add AI Assault Station that reduces spawning in the immediately surrounding systems; this increases AIP by x/y minutes when hacked.
3) Add AI Fabrication Station that allows for the ability to build Mk IV ships when hacked (takes x minutes); this increases AIP but the ability is permanent.
4) Add AI Subroutine Station that increases knowledge by x but costs y AIP per minute when hacked; increase AIP floor by z per minute.
5) Add AI Energy Station that increases energy pool by x when hacked; this effect last only as long as the station is being hacked and increases enemy spawns in-system.
And excetera. Basically this means that we're encouraged not to blow up systems and 'fool' the AI until we're deep striking and the AI sends MASSIVE retaliation and increases AIP (we're deep striking and AIP is supposed to be the AI's response meter. Why wouldn't it go up?). Those who want to build up large colonies and take every single system can play their way, those who want to keep AIP low can play their way, those who want to play the game as if they're fighting against a massive machine that will swat them like a bug if they show themselves can play like they're hiding from the AI.
6
AI War / Re: Does AI strength to AIP need adjustment? (aka, is AIP too restrictive?)
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:16:26 PM »
Wasn't there some discussion of changing the way that crystal works? If that happens then a lot of this conversation about changing the economy appears a bit moot.
7
AI War / Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:34:02 AM »
Just to throw in my two cents regarding the crystal long-term solution:
It seems like we should already have a solution in the form of asteroids. If crystal asteroids were available in certain systems and could be 'mined' by a specific ship type then the AI wouldn't be able to destroy the asteroids and the player would just be out a ship. Pre-mined caches could exist in the form of distribution nodes and the computer could even be 'competing' for crystal deposits, making clearing the AI crystal deposits strategically important. The 'crystal miner' would require a command center to deposit its cargo (whether it actually has to fly to the center or not) which also neatly forces the player to defend the system if practicable.
It seems like we should already have a solution in the form of asteroids. If crystal asteroids were available in certain systems and could be 'mined' by a specific ship type then the AI wouldn't be able to destroy the asteroids and the player would just be out a ship. Pre-mined caches could exist in the form of distribution nodes and the computer could even be 'competing' for crystal deposits, making clearing the AI crystal deposits strategically important. The 'crystal miner' would require a command center to deposit its cargo (whether it actually has to fly to the center or not) which also neatly forces the player to defend the system if practicable.
8
AI War / AI War for Linux?
« on: March 16, 2013, 03:01:34 AM »
Steam is finally moving to Linux (just in time actually to coincide with my own move to Ubuntu) and I was wondering-- are there any plans to move Arcen titles to Linux? I'd anticipate that Steam's move to an essentially free operating system is going to have some pretty big implications for the consumer base.
9
AI War / Re: Engine Health at 0 proposal
« on: December 06, 2012, 05:14:13 AM »
Voted for it, love it, one more term paper left!
And then my engine speed can finally be zero, too.
And then my engine speed can finally be zero, too.
10
AI War / Re: Human Threat Meter?
« on: November 15, 2012, 05:52:14 PM »
The Special Forces (SF) need some kind of logic to say 'if Human firepower (FP) threshold exceeds 'x' at 'y' planet, attack.' In a situation where the FP of the human player is greater than the FP of the computer, the computer should wait until threat FP = say 50% of human FP and then SLAM the human defenses. When the FP of the human player = say 60% of its original value then the SF should come in and slam the fleet ball. A one-two punch, so to speak. Obviously the percentages are up for debate.
Does this appeal to players? What percentage should I recommend in Mantis?
Does this appeal to players? What percentage should I recommend in Mantis?
12
AI War / Re: AI War state of the game
« on: November 14, 2012, 04:55:59 PM »
Beyond that, the nebula rewards (m+c/e and ships) just need a nerf. The ship stats will probably stay the same because I don't want to change the intra-nebula balance, but they'll probably be made to cost more and have a lower cap for the humans. We'll see.
Why not just run them like the Dyson Sphere with a slower respawn?
13
AI War / Re: Human Threat Meter?
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:58:55 PM »Quote
Yea, the special forces is a bit too easily baitible right now. They need some way to detect obvious "beachead baits" where you are clearly not trying to take the planet but bait and take out special forces (some sort of firepower consideration would help with that, though it wouldn't be enough to spot all obvious cases).
I also think special forces needs to group move, or at least some of the special forces should, so they don't stream in uselessly. (Having only some of the special forces group move would allow some of the faster ships to remain "fast response" units, and prevent special forces from becoming a non-issue if the AI unlocked a very slow bonus ship type)
I think this is key. The SF need some kind of logic which tells them 'find the source' and kill it. In a situation where the FP of the human player is greater than the FP of the computer, the computer should wait until threat FP = say 50% of human FP and then SLAM the human defenses. When the FP of the human player = say 60% of its original value then the SF should come in and slam the fleet ball. A one-two punch, so to speak. Obviously the percentages are up for debate.
14
AI War / Re: Human Threat Meter?
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:54:16 PM »
LOL, silly AI. Obvious targeting issue but hilarious results. Honestly, it's a mistake that even humans make (read anything on counter-insurgency from the 1980s and your head will explode).
15
AI War / Re: Human Threat Meter?
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:40:41 PM »
The AI shouldn't attack without provocation but certainly a 200 AIP is sufficient provocation, no?
What I'd like to see is the AI saying 'oh look, the humans are massing THERE. I should do something about that.' Local defense forces are frequently not enough (which is why the AI reinforces the way it does) but it should have a mobile, unconstrained force to address the threat.
From a lore standpoint, the AI is hoping to deal with the human 'threat' after it deals with its big enemy. That means keeping human resistance down. It's not going to do that by waiting, and conversely, it's not going to do that by just dealing damage that the humans can replace. It needs to do significant resource damage by either
1) destroying the enemy fleet, which is expensive to build,
2) destroying the enemy resources, which are expensive to replace, or
3) disrupting the enemy ability to mass and maneuver, which is strategically delaying.
Great idea!
What I'd like to see is the AI saying 'oh look, the humans are massing THERE. I should do something about that.' Local defense forces are frequently not enough (which is why the AI reinforces the way it does) but it should have a mobile, unconstrained force to address the threat.
From a lore standpoint, the AI is hoping to deal with the human 'threat' after it deals with its big enemy. That means keeping human resistance down. It's not going to do that by waiting, and conversely, it's not going to do that by just dealing damage that the humans can replace. It needs to do significant resource damage by either
1) destroying the enemy fleet, which is expensive to build,
2) destroying the enemy resources, which are expensive to replace, or
3) disrupting the enemy ability to mass and maneuver, which is strategically delaying.
Quote
Also, to make the AI a bit more proactive, I suggested that AIs would be willing to go in if they think they have at least a good shot of massive damage, instead of always having to wait until they think they can "win", which would be especially nifty now that the AI is valuing turrets properly.
Great idea!