View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002756 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Game Mechanics | Feb 6, 2011 2:38 pm | Mar 26, 2013 6:01 pm | |
| Reporter | vinco | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 5.000 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 6.014 | ||||
| Summary | 0002756: Prevent AI progress increase from destroying unbuilt structures | ||||
| Description | When laying out a lane of zenith space time manipulators, I ended up placing a few in non-optimal locations within their sectors. Even though I did this while paused, I still received an AI progress boost for each scrapped and re-positioned manipulator. Any chance the game logic could be altered to avoid AI progress increases in this situation? And in a more general case, if I want to "re-pave" the highway through my controlled space, far from AI strikes, why should I get AI progress? Perhaps something where if there are no AI within 2 hops, player-placed structures can be scrapped without AI progress? Maybe only for the Zenith space-time manipulators? | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | New | ||||
|
|
IMO the nicest way of implementing this is by having them only cost AIP if the AI takes them down, so scrapping them would not cost you any AIP and you could place them somewhere else when your game evolves. |
|
|
Or maybe make them mobile so you can move them around to where they make sense? |
|
|
No AIP for scrapping though means that if they're threatened you can scrap them before they blow up and save yourself from the AIP problem, which is probably why they don't work that way in the first place. |
|
|
Well, how about only giving AIP penalty if they are complete, like the suggestion. I don't think that would be too abusable. I do like the no AIP if there are no AI systems withen N hops. Once that structure get far enough away from the AI, it would make sense that they wouldn't notice or care. |
|
|
I also like the "only give AIP if complete" solution, however that doesn't fix moving them once they are complete, to reposition a highway. It does make a workable compromise however, so I think it'd be a good solution regardless. For the other suggestion, it seems like there is almost always an AI system within 2 hops unless you made it a point to clear out a portion of the map. Looking at my endgame map, every system except my home world and one other has an AI two hops away. Perhaps only give AIP progress if there is an AI ship in the system? You could, of course, see them coming, but it wouldn't happen that often, and you'd still lose the resources. |
|
|
IMO, Space Time Manipulators shouldn't give AIP. They already cost 30k energy each, which is more than most golems. |
|
|
Sunshine is right. Zenith space-time manipulators are indeed an awesome piece of technology, but not awesome enough for the AI to freak out because of it (which is the in universe justification for AIP increase for a player's unit's death) |
|
|
Sonorous, One of these days, I'll need to learn to play the game "properly." You can see the map which inspired my post in a related issue at http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=2757 Anyway, the idea of being able to move the manipulators is problematic. To really reposition them, you'd need wormhole access. This makes the structures assault-capable. That would bring an entirely new set of balance issues. That being said, I imagine the possibility of building a manipulator as part of a beachhead could be enough to warrant maintaining an AIP penalty for destruction in some cases. |
|
|
My 2 cent i think this is a silly issue. you should have built them in the right place in the first place. they are a system wide buff to placement is only important if they are in a train path and all of this is about lack of planning. planning is a large part of strategy and removing the penalty for not planning ahead seems silly. my only thought is that the ai might kill them before they finish which is much more annoying but why they are a risk. so back to risk vs reward is strategy must have a risk or it isnt a game anymore. |
|
|
He's talking about shifting the entire planet lanes. Entire planets that are no longer needed for logistics. |
|
|
this is what wormholes are for now. why build a lane of manipulators that you are going to tear down? |
|
|
Let's see... Say I have a lane 6 planets long. I place 3 manips at each. I then take two more worlds. I need to scrap several manips from the central region to build in the outer realms. Rinse/wash/repeat. I suppose if you take only isolated planets, you may not run into this issue. But when you're a fan of contiguous empires, it really helps to repave as you expand to ensure your fleet can make it to all fronts in a reasonable amount of time. |
|
|
I'd say scrapping something before it's 10% built would be reasonable for no AI progress increment. I had a bad oops once with a Z-power generator I put in the wrong spot on the map, deleted it without thinking. |
|
|
* Zenith SpaceTime Manipulators, like forcefields, now have the ability to move very slowly but not to go through wormholes, to allow for better repositioning of them. |
|
|
Reopening due to only partial addressing of concern. OK, but what if I want to move them to a new system, such as if I take a new planet? Let's say I've built out all of my ZSTM's, then take a new world I want to connect to the "highway." I still get AIP for scrapping ZSTM's from old systems to free up some to build in the new. Should there not be any strategic flexibility in their use? |
|
|
And in a more general case, if I want to "re-pave" the highway through my controlled space, far from AI strikes, why should I get AI progress? Perhaps something where if there are no AI within 2 hops, player-placed structures can be scrapped without AI progress? Maybe only for the Zenith space-time manipulators? These portions not addressed. |
|
|
In light of warp gates I'm not sure ZST's even serve a purpose anymore. Certainly I don't see a significant negative impact from removing their AIP cost. The actual suggestion in the title, however, is madness. Unbuilt trader structures that carry an AIP cost very much need to continue to do so, for example. |
|
|
I would say that disallowing scrapping of this type(you could still scrap it, but get the AIP increase) if AIP structures when enemy (aggressive, dont include mines or similar) units are in that system, or adjacent allied systems, and are attacking anything, or a wave is incoming to that system or any adjacent system, would prevent abuse of this type, but allow repositioning of them when the AI is nowhere near. |
|
|
For 6.014: * In honor of being in the top-10 in the mantis vote tallies: Units that cause AIP-on-death no longer do so if they are destroyed while still under construction. FWIW, as far as I can tell, ZSTM's themselves have no AIP on death. But this helps ZPGs, etc. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2011 2:38 pm | vinco | New Issue | |
| Feb 7, 2011 10:27 am | Red Spot | Note Added: 0010068 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 12:18 pm | KDR_11k | Note Added: 0010071 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 2:03 pm | BobTheJanitor | Note Added: 0010074 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 3:08 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010076 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 3:49 pm | Sonorus | Note Added: 0010082 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 3:50 pm | Sonorus | Note Edited: 0010082 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 6:04 pm | Sunshine | Note Added: 0010094 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 6:09 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010096 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 8:20 pm | vinco | Note Added: 0010105 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 11:51 pm | motai | Note Added: 0010108 | |
| Feb 8, 2011 1:29 am | KDR_11k | Note Added: 0010111 | |
| Feb 9, 2011 3:56 am | motai | Note Added: 0010196 | |
| Feb 9, 2011 8:47 am | vinco | Note Added: 0010200 | |
| Feb 10, 2011 8:30 pm | Zeyurn | Note Added: 0010254 | |
| Mar 23, 2011 6:35 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0011360 | |
| Mar 23, 2011 6:35 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Mar 23, 2011 6:35 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 5.007 |
| Mar 23, 2011 6:35 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Mar 23, 2011 6:35 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Mar 23, 2011 7:18 pm | vinco | Note Added: 0011366 | |
| Mar 23, 2011 7:19 pm | vinco | Note Added: 0011367 | |
| Mar 23, 2011 7:19 pm | vinco | Status | resolved => feedback |
| Mar 23, 2011 7:19 pm | vinco | Resolution | fixed => reopened |
| Mar 23, 2011 7:23 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | feedback => considering |
| Jul 17, 2011 11:25 am | Vinraith | Note Added: 0012737 | |
| Jul 17, 2011 2:05 pm | Ranakastrasz | Note Added: 0012738 | |
| Jul 17, 2011 2:06 pm | Ranakastrasz | Note Edited: 0012738 | |
| Mar 26, 2013 6:01 pm | keith.lamothe | Internal Weight | => New |
| Mar 26, 2013 6:01 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0031399 | |
| Mar 26, 2013 6:01 pm | keith.lamothe | Status | considering => resolved |
| Mar 26, 2013 6:01 pm | keith.lamothe | Fixed in Version | 5.007 => 6.014 |
| Mar 26, 2013 6:01 pm | keith.lamothe | Resolution | reopened => fixed |
