View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002010 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - AI Behavior And Tactics | Dec 11, 2010 7:07 pm | Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | |
| Reporter | MaxAstro | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Product Version | 4.049 | ||||
| Summary | 0002010: Anti-bottleneck behavior only on border planets | ||||
| Description | It would solve a lot of issues and make a lot of sense if the anti-bottleneck behavior only happened on AI worlds and human border worlds. From a thematic standpoint, how does the AI even know that I have that many ships two hops away from any system it controls? From a gameplay standpoint, this would partly solve the issue with certain golems triggering a permanent AI response and would allow you to leave your fleet on your core worlds without worrying about building too many ships and the AI getting peeved. Plus the Fallen Spire stuff would also have a chance of not being a one-way ticket to infinite threat. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
One problem with that, though: To have an impenetrable bottleneck, all you'd then have to do would be to build it one behind your border world, which is something that sometimes happens naturally, anyway. |
|
|
That is true. I don't like the mechanic as it stands at all, though. Bottlenecking needs to be prevented somehow, yes, but the mechanic needs to have a way to distinguish between "I'm am bottlenecking this planet for the rest of forever" and "I'm moving my entire fleet here to defend against the four waves the AI just announced against this one planet". |
|
|
I'm definitely open to discussion on that -- I'm sure this will get reinvented a lot next week. I also think that this is not triggering often enough in certain circumstances, and too often in others, but it was a worthwhile first stab to test it out, I think. Better a discussion on the forums, though. |
|
|
How about make it so that the AI only responds to anti-bottlenecking when it knows about it going on. So on AI controlled systems, border worlds, and planets it currently has ships on. This way, you can build up your giant turret farm plus starships and golems on a system one away from the front and it'll be safe right until a fighter jumps through the wormhole and spots the massive buildup of forces. This would let people do large force raids with a timer - hit a really well defended system super hard and then pull back to deal with the spawned response forces. As for the decrease rate, maybe have the firepower response level decrease by one per minute the system isn't being monitored - requiring the player to pull back the main offense line or stall out attacking forces before they get to the perimeter. This would mean a minimum of 45 spawned ships for a detected 10,000 Firepower planet at AI 7 and a lot more for a really serious blob or a planet that sees a lot of action. |
|
|
How about defining a border world as one that borders AI or neutral worlds? Once the AI moves in you either move your blob to meet it and trigger the response or it breaks the command station in front of your blob world and triggers the response. That would make it less likely for factory worlds to accidentally go above the threshold because they'll be far in friendly territory anyway. |
|
|
Except that many players (myself included) often build front-line factories so we don't have to wait for frigates (which I no longer build anyway) to move up. |
|
|
In the next version: The experimental anti-bottleneck/anti-giant-fleet from the last version was problematic and on shaky logical ground to begin with. It was an interesting brief experiment, and thanks to everyone for bearing with us and sharing your thoughts whether you loved it or hated it. But this is one mechanic where trying to fix it is likely to just spiral out of control, and we'd rather devote our time and attention to more promising avenues. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2010 7:07 pm | MaxAstro | New Issue | |
| Dec 11, 2010 7:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005998 | |
| Dec 11, 2010 7:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 11, 2010 7:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Dec 11, 2010 7:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 11, 2010 7:57 pm | MaxAstro | Note Added: 0005999 | |
| Dec 11, 2010 8:01 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006000 | |
| Dec 12, 2010 3:25 am | cathexis | Note Added: 0006052 | |
| Dec 12, 2010 10:28 am | KDR_11k | Note Added: 0006059 | |
| Dec 13, 2010 4:01 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0006118 | |
| Dec 13, 2010 9:09 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006139 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | resolved => closed |
