View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002186 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - AI Behavior And Tactics | Dec 27, 2010 11:19 pm | Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | |
| Reporter | TechSY730 | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Product Version | 4.058 | ||||
| Summary | 0002186: Turtle AIs TOO good at their jobs | ||||
| Description | Turtles do a very good job at defending their planets and slowing the player down. A little too good of a job. So good of a job that they seriously throw off the pacing of the game with almost no "fun factors" in return. Even at a mere level 7, the turtle AIs reinforces planets to a strength that brings the game's progression to a crawl. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
Some possible ways to fix this (I'm posting this in the comments so people don't confuse this report to be about the suggestions, not the base issue) One concrete suggestion, the extra guard post on every wormhole has got to go. It increases the "maximum reinforcement unit count" for that planet way too much. Just give it a smallish to medium bonus to the maximum number of units each guard post can hold, thus giving a more modest increase to the maximum number of ships per planet. Here is another suggestion (which would be in addition to the first suggestion) Make the reinforcement bonus significantly less for Turtle type AIs (but still be the greatest of all the AI types) but allow them to send waves as normal, just at a quarter of the base wave size. This way they can still defend well, but not to a broken degree. Plus, the attacks will allow them to pose a (small) threat. Even in more traditional RTSs, some good turtles will occasionally send out very small attack forces to possibly catch some undefended areas by surprise, but with a small enough force such that they can still focus their resources on defending. A similar adjustment should be made for the support corps (but since they already contribute to waves indirectly, maybe their wave penalty can be more harsh) As always, numbers can be adjusted for balance. |
|
|
The issue is really that the turtle types lead more to "stalemate" states, rather than "loss" ones. |
|
|
@Vinraith True, but do you think those small waves I proposed would help with that problem? (Again it doesn't have to be a quarter, it could be a half or something. Just enough to distinguish it from offensively balanced AIs) |
|
|
I think it might. Ironically I think your other change (the reduction of wormhole posts) actually takes away the one offensive thing turtles can do: generate border aggression. |
|
|
Duh, border aggression. I forgot about the "passive aggressive" tendencies that the Turtle AI brings out. Okay, those can stay if we can figure out how to have the Turtle AI encourage border aggression without reinforcing the planet to stupid degrees. |
|
|
If you don't like them, don't play with them -- they can be disabled. But we aim to support a wide variety of player interests and playstyles, and this meansthat not every type will appeal to everyone. If we try to have every type please everyone, everything becomes very homogenous. Instead we opt for having enough options that people can all hopefully find something they like. The turtles are a very specific flavor. |
|
|
Fair enough! |
|
|
Yea, I guess that is good too. It seems the balance of them makes the game slow, but I guess some people like taking down heavy defended planets. From what you seem to be saying, the balance in that regard is good enough right now. As much as a like the turtling strategy, I am not really skilled enough to deal with them without slowing down to a crawl, or at least not yet. Until then, I'll just add them to the disabled AI list. |
|
|
Turtles allow you to go at a crawl though. They don't send waves. The way they were before the fortress buff and so on they were pushovers. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2010 11:19 pm | TechSY730 | New Issue | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:24 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0007132 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:29 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0007132 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:32 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0007132 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:32 pm | Vinraith | Note Added: 0007134 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:34 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0007135 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:34 pm | Vinraith | Note Edited: 0007134 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:36 pm | Vinraith | Note Added: 0007136 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:39 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0007137 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:40 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0007132 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:45 pm | Vinraith | Note Edited: 0007136 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:46 pm | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:59 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0007142 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:59 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:59 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Dec 27, 2010 11:59 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 28, 2010 12:00 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Edited: 0007142 | |
| Dec 28, 2010 12:09 am | Vinraith | Note Added: 0007145 | |
| Dec 28, 2010 12:33 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0007147 | |
| Dec 28, 2010 12:36 am | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0007147 | |
| Dec 28, 2010 9:23 am | Suzera | Note Added: 0007151 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | resolved => closed |
