View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0009396 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - AI Behavior And Tactics | Aug 29, 2012 12:01 am | Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm | |
| Reporter | TechSY730 | Assigned To | keith.lamothe | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 5.073 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 5.090 | ||||
| Summary | 0009396: After waiting a long time on a wormhole, threat should "reroll" which planet to stalk | ||||
| Description | Credit should also go to Hearteater, who also independently came up with this idea. Copied from http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,11378.msg116344.html#msg116344 I would agree with making freed AI ships that have been waiting at a wormhole > N time "reroll" their target planet (which may choose the same planet again, which is fine. That would allow some buildup of threat, but overall spread out threat better). Also, that >N time should checked on a global timer, not a per ship timer, as otherwise individual ships would start bleeding off and then often times wind up doing nothing. If instead, the AI "batched" their checks (maybe check for ships waiting for >N time every N time interval?), you would typically see them group much better. This would fall apart some if you have lots of border planets though... I thought I posted idea on mantis a long time ago, but it doesn't look like I did. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | Feature Suggestion | ||||
| related to | 0007016 | considering | Reduce the firepower cutoff ratio that "stalking a wormhole" AI ships will wait for before entering | |
| related to | 0009465 | resolved | keith.lamothe | Give Freed AI Ships more possible actions |
|
|
I had to read my own thread to remember what I suggested :) . I think the below link gets to the post in question better. The paragraph under the heading THREAT is the one for this mantis issue. http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,11378.msg116328.html#msg116328 |
|
|
Hmm, any idea about how long N should be? Or how long the interval between the "batch" checks for ships that have waiting >N time? (Expressing this in terms of N is fine) |
|
|
I'm guessing around 20-30 minutes for checks would work reasonably well. Threat already reacts very quickly to pulling firepower out of a system. This is really more of a strategic action, and I think the 20-30 minute time frame is enough time to keep the AI from feeling like it has ADD. |
|
|
You could also add a check every time the AIP is increased. |
|
|
For 5.090: * Since "make the threatballs fish or cut bait" was 0000001 on the second round of the 6.0 poll: ** Threat ships behave as they used to for about 30 minutes after being freed, but after that they are switched to an alternate "Threat Fleet" behavior that is somewhat similar to the new Special Forces mechanic. *** Note: this only happens on Difficulty 7+, as it's not the AI getting anything extra, it's just behaving more intelligently (in theory) with what it has. ** If an AI homeworld or core world is under attack, the threat fleet will rally to defend it. ** Otherwise, if it sees an accessible non-AI planet with a significant human presence that it thinks it can take out, it goes to attack that (it will still pool up at the entry wormhole in some cases, until enough of them are there to pass the threshold, so they don't march in to the grinder one-by-one). ** Otherwise, it picks a planet in AI territory to hang out at until either of the two above conditions are met. ** If a carrier is spontaneously formed from ships that have a significant threat-fleet population, the carrier (and anything it spawns) is also considered threat-fleet. Not exactly what any one request was going for, iirc, but I think this will make that threat at least more interesting. Thanks for the feedback :) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2012 12:01 am | TechSY730 | New Issue | |
| Aug 29, 2012 9:28 am | Hearteater | Note Added: 0028049 | |
| Aug 29, 2012 11:36 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0028052 | |
| Aug 29, 2012 12:12 pm | Hearteater | Note Added: 0028053 | |
| Sep 2, 2012 8:03 am | TechSY730 | Relationship added | related to 0007016 |
| Sep 2, 2012 10:28 am | Soyweiser | Note Added: 0028127 | |
| Sep 3, 2012 8:54 pm | TechSY730 | Relationship added | related to 0009465 |
| Sep 4, 2012 3:51 pm | tigersfan | Internal Weight | => Feature Suggestion |
| Sep 4, 2012 3:51 pm | tigersfan | Status | new => considering |
| Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0028598 | |
| Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm | keith.lamothe | Status | considering => resolved |
| Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm | keith.lamothe | Fixed in Version | => 5.090 |
| Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm | keith.lamothe | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm | keith.lamothe | Assigned To | => keith.lamothe |
