1
AI War / Re: [Minor Suggestion] Anti-Clutter Lobby Settings
« on: March 16, 2012, 06:42:57 PM »
I see. I've never played on a difficulty that high, so I wouldnt know.
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: [Minor Suggestion] Anti-Clutter Lobby Settings
« on: March 16, 2012, 04:10:22 PM »
I also agree with the sentiments of the above posts, and I might also add that if you never, ever have to use a distribution node, its possible you're playing on a difficulty below your skill level. That's fine, as long as you're having fun, just be careful you dont get bored of the game too soon due to lack of challenge. =)
3
AI War / Re: MORE MORE MORE CHEAT...
« on: March 16, 2012, 03:29:08 PM »
The original Total Annihilation was much better than TA: Kingdoms. That game kind of flopped.
And yes, AI war is very unique. =)
And yes, AI war is very unique. =)
4
AI War / Re: MORE MORE MORE CHEAT...
« on: March 16, 2012, 02:25:09 PM »
The game was designed from the ground up around the grand strategy concept of having to decide where to allocate your available units across your offensive and defensive fronts. That's one of the reasons I love the game. It would be far too easy, and grindy, if there were no ship caps. It might be amusing to play that way once or twice, but then again thats what the cheats are for in the first place. =)
If you want a game that is meant to be played that way, I suggest Total Annihilation. That classic game also has an economy based around resource inflows and outflows similar to AI war, but with no caps on anything. The units are also appropriately balanced around that type of gameplay, and there are a ton of fun mods for it too. =)
If you want a game that is meant to be played that way, I suggest Total Annihilation. That classic game also has an economy based around resource inflows and outflows similar to AI war, but with no caps on anything. The units are also appropriately balanced around that type of gameplay, and there are a ton of fun mods for it too. =)
5
AI War / Re: Energy Effeciency Programming Challenge (CANCELED)
« on: March 16, 2012, 06:31:44 AM »
I dabbled with programming back in school, but I'm primarily a problem solver and critical thinker. My way of thinking says that if you want to come up with an energy management system, first take a step back and look and what you're doing: you're trying to devise and code an algorithm to manipulate a system that was, by design, intended to be operated manually. It's like youre trying to design a robot to haul buckets of water from a river to a town instead of building an aqueduct. In my opinion, rather than automating the current system, it would be better, and easier, to just re-work the way energy is handled in the game, and reduce it to a simple formula that calculates the amount of resources that are consumed by the energy requirements of active ships.
After all, when automotive engineers designed automatic transmissions, they didnt just make a computer program and extra set of mechanisms to manipulate a manual transmission, they designed a whole new transmission based upon the very concept of it being automatic. I think the same thing applies here.
In a truly automatic energy management system, there would be no reactors (at least not as we know them right now). You would simply have an amount of resources held back from your income, based on the total energy needs of all non-low power ships. In keeping with the theme of more territory = more total energy production capacity (before having to deal with inefficient reactors), there would be a soft cap to your normal cost of producing energy, based on the total number of command stations you have. After which, a mathematical curve takes effect that increases resource drain in greater proportion to energy usage (similar to how energy inefficient reactors work now) until you take more planets or turn off some ships.
A figure showing your current resource drain from active ships could be added as a line item in the metal/crystal tooltips at the top of the screen (this is something I've always wanted anyway, even with the current energy system), and what is currently the available energy figure could become your current energy use, compared to the amount you can produce before hitting the soft cap (similar to a food use display in RTS games). The tooltip for it could be the current resource drain per 10,000 energy use, or something similar.
That way, not only is energy management automated, but the player has easy-to-read figures regarding energy and the cost of powering their ships. Beyond that, the player would also not have to worry about building reactors (building reactors wouldn't be intuitive in an automatic energy management system anyway).
Implications:
-Instead of energy brownouts you would have sharp increases in resource drain in certain cases where you lose control of planets
-The loss of the strategic gameplay element of protecting your reactors is inconsequential, since if the AI is blowing up your reactors, theyre usually also blowing up your command stations. Though if you really wanted to keep energy reactors in the game, you could simply have one generic energy reactor that "activates" that planet for energy production, adding to the soft cap
-Zenith power generators would become structures that greatly increase your soft cap of energy production, or possibly a structure that reduces your normal resource cost for producing energy (that would actually be really cool, as the benefit of having it would be proportional to your energy use).
Now, dont get me wrong, I think the current hamster button solution works fine, and I dont think Chris/Keith need to spend time reworking the system (I know how they feel about that already, thanks to the energy hamster's relentless sarcastic remarks). However, if an automation system were to be developed, I'd rather it be something like above. If I were a new player, it would be very confusing to me to have to figure out how many reactors to build, and what mark level, if the available energy was always at the same level due to the automation. It just wouldnt be intuitive at all unless reactors were always auto-populated similar to extractors. And if they were, then it would make even more sense to implement a system like I described above.
TLDR: Don't devise a way to automate a system that was designed to be operated manually. Rather, create a system that is designed around being automatic.
After all, when automotive engineers designed automatic transmissions, they didnt just make a computer program and extra set of mechanisms to manipulate a manual transmission, they designed a whole new transmission based upon the very concept of it being automatic. I think the same thing applies here.
In a truly automatic energy management system, there would be no reactors (at least not as we know them right now). You would simply have an amount of resources held back from your income, based on the total energy needs of all non-low power ships. In keeping with the theme of more territory = more total energy production capacity (before having to deal with inefficient reactors), there would be a soft cap to your normal cost of producing energy, based on the total number of command stations you have. After which, a mathematical curve takes effect that increases resource drain in greater proportion to energy usage (similar to how energy inefficient reactors work now) until you take more planets or turn off some ships.
A figure showing your current resource drain from active ships could be added as a line item in the metal/crystal tooltips at the top of the screen (this is something I've always wanted anyway, even with the current energy system), and what is currently the available energy figure could become your current energy use, compared to the amount you can produce before hitting the soft cap (similar to a food use display in RTS games). The tooltip for it could be the current resource drain per 10,000 energy use, or something similar.
That way, not only is energy management automated, but the player has easy-to-read figures regarding energy and the cost of powering their ships. Beyond that, the player would also not have to worry about building reactors (building reactors wouldn't be intuitive in an automatic energy management system anyway).
Implications:
-Instead of energy brownouts you would have sharp increases in resource drain in certain cases where you lose control of planets
-The loss of the strategic gameplay element of protecting your reactors is inconsequential, since if the AI is blowing up your reactors, theyre usually also blowing up your command stations. Though if you really wanted to keep energy reactors in the game, you could simply have one generic energy reactor that "activates" that planet for energy production, adding to the soft cap
-Zenith power generators would become structures that greatly increase your soft cap of energy production, or possibly a structure that reduces your normal resource cost for producing energy (that would actually be really cool, as the benefit of having it would be proportional to your energy use).
Now, dont get me wrong, I think the current hamster button solution works fine, and I dont think Chris/Keith need to spend time reworking the system (I know how they feel about that already, thanks to the energy hamster's relentless sarcastic remarks). However, if an automation system were to be developed, I'd rather it be something like above. If I were a new player, it would be very confusing to me to have to figure out how many reactors to build, and what mark level, if the available energy was always at the same level due to the automation. It just wouldnt be intuitive at all unless reactors were always auto-populated similar to extractors. And if they were, then it would make even more sense to implement a system like I described above.
TLDR: Don't devise a way to automate a system that was designed to be operated manually. Rather, create a system that is designed around being automatic.
6
AI War / Re: RANDOM IDEA AND IM BACK LOL
« on: March 14, 2012, 11:49:24 PM »
Whenever I'm in the mood to play Sins of a Solar Empire, I play Sins of a Solar Empire. 
In all seriousness though, while its a neat idea and I would certainly enjoy a game or two with it if it ever made it into the game, I think it goes too much against the design philosophy of the game. It's basically like trying to add in another element from 4X that it doesnt really need, and that probably wouldnt fit well.
In all seriousness though, while its a neat idea and I would certainly enjoy a game or two with it if it ever made it into the game, I think it goes too much against the design philosophy of the game. It's basically like trying to add in another element from 4X that it doesnt really need, and that probably wouldnt fit well.
7
AI War / Re: I have created movie for advertisement tactical combat
« on: March 14, 2012, 11:26:27 PM »
Great video. =) If you do any further revisions, maybe you should also make a notation that the game is being played at a modified speed, or at least mention that you can change it. People should know that they can make the combat as fast or slow paced as they would like.
8
AI War / Re: AI War Beta 5.030, "Refined Hacking," Released!
« on: March 14, 2012, 11:23:27 PM »
Honestly, probably too many for you to actually read through. It would probably be faster just to play the game and see each change as you run into it. That's what I did after taking about a year long break from the game, and it worked out rather well.
9
AI War / Re: Seed Request - Disposable Heros
« on: March 14, 2012, 11:44:53 AM »
Well, it stands to reason that the neinzul would have had some other technologies, units, and structures that complimented their ship design and gave them a more well rounded force. So trying to roleplay them by using only neinzul ships probably means youre playing with a gimped version of the neinzul...
10
AI War / Re: Seed Request - Disposable Heros
« on: March 12, 2012, 09:58:14 PM »
I dont think it's very fair to try to role-play the neinzul forces by denying yourself the triangle ships.
11
After Action Reports / Re: Armageddon
« on: March 11, 2012, 05:30:36 AM »
I think there are separate achievements for nuking every planet individually and for winning after using a mk3 nuke.
I dont think Scorched Earth counts, but I'm not sure.
I dont think Scorched Earth counts, but I'm not sure.
\m/13
After Action Reports / Re: Armageddon
« on: March 08, 2012, 09:47:56 PM »
I would imagine the first reinforcement wave or attack wave after using the nuke would kill you. That being said, I dont think you need to worry about cheesing with it. As far as I can think, there are pretty much only two ways you can win after using it, and those would be the Spire alternate victory, or having nuke immune fleets ready to take the homeworlds immediately after using it.
14
AI War / Re: This may seem ridiculous but...
« on: March 08, 2012, 08:45:20 PM »
Yeah I guess that would do it. 
15
After Action Reports / Re: Armageddon
« on: March 08, 2012, 08:12:37 PM »
Nice. When I first saw the mk 3 nuke, I tried brainstorming about how I would win after using one, but quickly got frustrated with that chain of thought and moved on.
Looking forward to seeing how it goes.
Looking forward to seeing how it goes.