View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryLast Update
0023025AI War 2Bug - GameplayMar 15, 2020 9:31 pm
ReporterFlypaste Assigned ToBadgerBadger  
Status closedResolutionwon't fix 
Product Version2.009 Plenty Of Tuning 
Fixed in Version2.012 Populous 
Summary0023025: AI needs to enable its abilities and mark levels for minor factions
DescriptionThe AI can never gain any abilities or mark levels to deal with minor threats if the player has not allowed them.

- If I haven't gotten to the 60 AIP threshold for reconquest waves, the AI cannot reconquest minor faction planets even if said minor faction has captured 3/4s of the galaxy. Special wave types need to be enabled for minor factions based on their AIP instead of the player's AIP.

- If I don't have enough AIP for special forces fleets to mark up, they cannot mark up to deal with minor factions. Now that fireteams exist I believe that this can be fixed by marking up special forces fireteams that are created for dealing with minor factions.

Screenshot included of sub 60 AIP and marauders consequently taking over the entire galaxy unopposed
TagsNo tags attached.

Activities

Flypaste

Mar 13, 2020 7:08 pm

reporter  

galaxy1.png (1,817,000 bytes)

RocketAssistedPuffin

Mar 13, 2020 7:17 pm

reporter   ~0056536

This would have repercussions such as being able to be attacked by Usurpers that you haven't unlocked.

It'd also break things like the Warden or Praetorian Guard, because they aren't actually against any specific faction. Trying to give them faction-specific Fireteams would start using up their capacity, hindering them against the player. Praetorian doesn't even have Fireteams to begin with. If it's extra capacity, then there can be AI doom fleets going around that would be impossible to engage for the player, through no act of their own.

The Mark level thing wouldn't work for them either, as then it'd be entirely possible to face higher mark AI units just because of a faction elsewhere. If you ever engage it in combat, then it would technically be eligible to go after you too. If they don't, then it'll probably get reported numerous times as a bug, as inactive Warden/Praetorian fleets.

I'd be very against this. I think it's fine if the player has that kind of power, it's meant to be about them after all.

StarKelp

Mar 13, 2020 7:37 pm

developer   ~0056537

I'm not quite sure why there is an AIP gate for Reconquest waves. You crack it open before even hitting tier 2. I'd argue less for letting the ai special case against the ai, and more for just always allowing them.

AIP scaling per faction seems... like a nightmare to both try and program and to play with. Running my fleet around dealing with a bunch of mark 1-2 units, only to suddenly get smacked about by a mark 5 Hunter fleet that was flying by sounds really un fun and a save-scum moment.

RocketAssistedPuffin

Mar 13, 2020 7:39 pm

reporter   ~0056538

Yeah I was wondering that about the AIP requirement.

Flypaste

Mar 13, 2020 8:37 pm

reporter   ~0056539

"Running my fleet around dealing with a bunch of mark 1-2 units, only to suddenly get smacked about by a mark 5 Hunter fleet that was flying by sounds really un fun"

Really? that sounds really fun to me, much more in line with the whole "the AI is a bureaucracy and you're not worth its time" theme. The entire premise of the game is that you need to avoid doing things that get the AI aggro'd at you unnecessarily. Trying to interfere in a fight much bigger than you're capable of handling sounds like a great way to really put the player in their place in terms of showing just how high the AI's power level really is.

DEMOCRACY_DEMOCRACY

Mar 14, 2020 3:24 am

reporter   ~0056546

https://bugtracker.arcengames.com/view.php?id=22815

so one the above, you're complaining about wardens suddenly attacking your planets when the CS is destroyed (which makes them technically now neutral) and saying that's unfun, but here you're saying and supporting that running into a death fleet of mk5 ships is fun? I'm getting mixed messages here. Is it fun to have to deal with a crazy amount of AI crap or not?

Strategic Sage

Mar 14, 2020 6:53 am

reporter   ~0056547

I think the problem here, regardless of 'fun' or not, is that this solution is worse than the disease. Basically it would totally invalidate any low-AIP strategy when there's another faction in the game. It tells the low-AIP player their way is wrong (not intentionally ofc) because they don't have the resources to deal with high-mark hunter/warden fleets and are intentionally not triggering the AI to develop such. It also flies in the face of the fundamental AI War 2 concept that it is player action, not other-faction action, which triggers higher level of AI resistance. I don't think handing that agency over to other factions is good for the game.

ParadoxSong

Mar 14, 2020 8:22 am

reporter   ~0056550

Agreed. Honestly, the real issue here is that having reconquest waves AIP-locked is no longer good for the game.

BadgerBadger

Mar 15, 2020 9:06 pm

manager   ~0056569

Last edited: Mar 15, 2020 9:31 pm

Feature, not bug.

Also, even if I thought this was desirable (which I don't), it would be a ton of effort, far more than the potential value of this change.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
Mar 13, 2020 7:08 pm Flypaste New Issue
Mar 13, 2020 7:08 pm Flypaste File Added: galaxy1.png
Mar 13, 2020 7:17 pm RocketAssistedPuffin Note Added: 0056536
Mar 13, 2020 7:37 pm StarKelp Note Added: 0056537
Mar 13, 2020 7:39 pm RocketAssistedPuffin Note Added: 0056538
Mar 13, 2020 8:37 pm Flypaste Note Added: 0056539
Mar 14, 2020 3:24 am DEMOCRACY_DEMOCRACY Note Added: 0056546
Mar 14, 2020 6:53 am Strategic Sage Note Added: 0056547
Mar 14, 2020 8:22 am ParadoxSong Note Added: 0056550
Mar 15, 2020 9:06 pm BadgerBadger Assigned To => BadgerBadger
Mar 15, 2020 9:06 pm BadgerBadger Status new => closed
Mar 15, 2020 9:06 pm BadgerBadger Resolution open => won't fix
Mar 15, 2020 9:06 pm BadgerBadger Fixed in Version => 2.012 Populous
Mar 15, 2020 9:06 pm BadgerBadger Note Added: 0056569
Mar 15, 2020 9:31 pm BadgerBadger Note Edited: 0056569