View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002785 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - AI Behavior And Tactics | Feb 10, 2011 6:26 pm | Feb 21, 2011 9:32 am | |
| Reporter | TechSY730 | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | assigned | Resolution | reopened | ||
| Product Version | 5.000 | ||||
| Summary | 0002785: Fleet ships that have a bonus against structural armor to get a slight wave multiplier nerf | ||||
| Description | EDIT: Easy explanation for those not familiar with wave mechanics. Make it such that when the AI chooses a ship to use in a wave and that ship has a bonus against structural armor, then the number of those ships will be a little less than they would be for other ship types. Note that bombers are among the things that have a bonus against structural, and that forcefields have a structural armor type, just to give you an idea of he problem this suggestion is trying to correct. Idea in post http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=1523, and the rational and discussion (and support) expressed in that thread (both before and after the linked post) Note, this is scaling down their existing multipliers (like the one for the Neinzul tiger will still be >1, but less than the other neinzul younglings' multipliers) The factor that this should be scaled down, and whether that factor should depend on each ship's structural bonus and how, is yet to be determined. Three big reasons why this change should be considered is: -Ships with a structural bonus pose a disproportionate threat to the player, due to the fact that stuff players put under forcefields is usually valuable and/or important, and frequently fragile too. -Up until the later stages of the mid game, human players will generally not have enough tools to deal with the large number of fleet ships the AI will send at that stage before they get close to a place they want to defend. (Yes, you can focus "stalling tools" and turrets if you can make a few bottlenecks, but good luck gate raiding enough to get to that point. At that doesn't help big waves of bombers coming in the early game) -Usually, some ships "leaking" through your wormhole defenses is not a big deal. Your mobile military can take its time catching up to them and killing them. The problem is that frequently many fleet ships with a structural bonus leak through, too many for your fleet ships to deal with before they can get to your forcefields and kill it. (This is especially true for non-schitzo waves that choose such fleet ships, but it can and has happened with schitzo waves too) I would agree that this is sort of a distasteful solution, but all the other solutions to this sort of issue will require large scale balance changes which of course will take lots of time to reason through. Until tweaking of all the various mechanics involved with these complaints can be worked through, players will continue to _frequently_ "rofl unstoppable curb-stomped" by unreasonable situations as 250 bombers at 200 AIP on difficulty 7.0 (Yes, these types of situations are supposed to be possible, but rare. From current reports, such unreasonable waves given the game stage seem to be rather frequent). Maybe this could only be a short term "fix" until forcefields, command station, bonuses, and wave sizes can be reexamined and tweaked if necessary. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
How about as a starting point for discussion, a flat .75 multiplier to a ship's wave multiplier if that ship has a structural bonus. |
|
|
These waves are extra tough on purpose. Our goal isn't to average everything into an identical challenge, there should be peaks and valleys. And if you don't do enough gate-raiding, but try to take a lot of disparate planets, then you're running a very real risk. |
|
|
I think the complaint is that even on 7.0 (the "standard" difficulty), they aren't just extra tough, they are unwinnably tough (unless you dumped ALL of your knowledge into counter bomber (or whatever bomber the AI will use) turrets and ships, and stalling tools (like tractor beams, gravity turrets, and spider turrets)), which is of course an unreasonable expectation. This may be fixed by tweaking how waves are being sized vs AIP, which there is already an issue posted discussing this. I, like you, found this a distasteful idea, but I merely posted it because some other players though it was a good idea. |
|
|
LOL, look at the change log. Even though I only changed the description and NOT the status, the status as it was when I started editing the description was reapplied. Looks like we just found a minor race condition. :D Does the Mantis software itself have a bug tracker for it? |
|
|
Sorry for reopening, but there is an additional part of this issue I posted that sort of needs your or Kieth's feedback. |
|
|
(Quadruple post, woo!) With bombers not being quite so ridiculous against forcefields, and now that standard fighters now serve as a better counter, do bomber waves still invoke such fear and complaints of "unwinnablity"? EDIT: Assigned, wha? I didn't touch the status. |
|
|
(Quintuple post, going for the record!) I see that you have replaced the old CanUseNeinzulRegenerator (I guess your way of flagging neinzul fleet ships) with a UsefulnessInAIWaveMultiplier, and given the neinzul fleet ships their old effective value of 2x. I also see that you gave bombers a .8 (which is why it is relevant to this issue). My question is how is the UsefulnessInAIWaveMultiplier different than the existing AIWaveMultiplier. Is it applied in different circumstances or something? |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2011 6:26 pm | TechSY730 | New Issue | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:31 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010247 | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:32 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0010248 | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:32 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => closed |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:32 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:32 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:34 pm | TechSY730 | Resolution | won't fix => open |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:34 pm | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:39 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010250 | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:39 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0010250 | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:43 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010251 | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:43 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0010251 | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:50 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010252 | |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:50 pm | TechSY730 | Status | closed => feedback |
| Feb 10, 2011 6:50 pm | TechSY730 | Resolution | open => reopened |
| Feb 18, 2011 7:52 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010474 | |
| Feb 18, 2011 7:52 pm | TechSY730 | Status | feedback => assigned |
| Feb 18, 2011 7:52 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0010474 | |
| Feb 18, 2011 7:52 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0010474 | |
| Feb 21, 2011 9:32 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010578 |
