The AI pays half mineral maintenance (ships and consumer goods) on Normal

[Wizzington]

I suggest you read the "Stellaris is Way too Unfair" thread, where you directly tell another forum goer that the AI doesn't get any resource buffs on normal, that it is simply better at managing its economy than the player in question.

The reality is that "paying less maintenance" is an economic buff. If you're paying 20% of your mineral income on your fleet, that's a substantial amount. Even more noticeable in the new update, but even pre-2.0 100 naked corvettes would have a maintenance of what 50 minerals a month?

Current game: My Rethellian Coalition has mineral expenditure on ships of 556 per month. 50% of that gives the equivalent AI next to me an extra 278 minerals per month to spend on stuff, including ships. That's huge.

You've been pretty rude to players on these forums about this issue. It would be lovely in future if you:
a) did not lie by omission,
b) did not deride players who suspect that the AI is cheating (because yes, free resources is cheating, it doesn't matter if its a console hack or a If(AI) then (0.5*Maintenance Cost)
c) were upfront and honest about the advantages the AI is getting, especially if players are saying "I suspect the AI is getting free resources"

I will agree that saying it did not get resource buffs was poorly worded, and I apologize if I was misleading. The thread in question claimed that AI empires simply get fleets gifted to them, however, which it really does not. Honestly, I didn't see the mineral maintenance discount as having any real significance before 2.0 because mineral maintenance from fleets was rarely a very big deal. Nowadays it very much is.

 

[razaron]

I will agree that saying it did not get resource buffs was poorly worded, and I apologize if I was misleading.

Being clear helps a lot. Thanks for listing all the bonuses.
I remember when people were complaining about Total War AI spawning free units all over the place for over a year because the devs weren't clear. The devs denied it and they were technically right because it turned out the AI just got a bonus to Recruitment Capacity.

 

[UberWaffe]

The reason they're not modifiers is because we don't want them to be additive with other modifiers. I could put them in defines though.

That would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Borgratz]

Oh yeah, the AI also knows the status of (non-empire owned) hostiles in systems even if it doesn't have sensor range of them, so it'll know if for instance a space amoeba is cleared out of a system and send science ships to explore it. Otherwise it obeys sensor range rules.

Somewhat related: Is there currently somethign wrong with that behaviour? In my two games so far the AI seems terribly scared to attack 900ish space mobs even while having 2000+ fleets. Thanks to chokepoints that leads to pretty big empty spaces they could expand into otherwise.

 

[UberWaffe]

Somewhat related: Is there currently somethign wrong with that behaviour? In my two games so far the AI seems terribly scared to attack 900ish space mobs even while having 2000+ fleets. Thanks to chokepoints that leads to pretty big empty spaces they could expand into otherwise.

I've seen an AI empire grind down a 4x 1000 strong space hive nest swarm by multiple strikes of a 1.5k fleet. So it isn't always afraid to hit when needed. Maybe situational?

 

[Adantigus]

The AI does indeed pay reduced mineral maintenance (and in some cases reduced energy maintenance). To my knowledge I have never claimed otherwise, only that the AI does not simply get free ships or otherwise can build for free (which it does and can not). The reason it gets reduced maintenance is mostly to do with the complexity of the tile system and the fact that it isn't as good as a player at resource prioritization. Hopefully at some point we can get the AI good enough to not need these sort of cheats, but the honest truth is that AI will probably always need to cheat in some specific ways to cover up weaknesses (another example of this would be that the AI pays much lower costs for gene-modding because otherwise it tends to hold up its own research for far too long).

If the AI has trouble at resource prioritization, then maybe the best way to implement an "easy mode" difficulty setting would be to give players those same bonuses (reduced mineral upkeep payments and tech costs) instead of taking those bonuses away from the AI. After all, beginning players also struggle with resource prioritization.

 

[PhoenixMW]

@Wiz So when people pointed out, they felt like the AI was just handed a big bad navy, because it should not be able to maintain something like that and still expand like it does, you chose not to explain why it feels that way and instead denied that it gets handed a fleet. And that's not lying. Because you did not outright say it doesnt cheat when it comes to having a fleet and merely implied it.
I'm sorry, but that's a somewhat upsetting bit of sophistry. Especially since it encouraged people to tell everyone to git gud and l2p who (correctly) suspected the AI was cheating in a meaningful way when it comes to having a big bad fleet, because they were wrong about the specific way it cheated - like that was the important bit. 'twas not.

 

[artemis667]

Cool. In my experience, I’m keeping up with the AI anyway, so it’s not a huge problem - I’m probably playing optimally just by default. But if the AI gets improved, and I expect it will, devs, please remember to tone down the buffs it’s getting at the moment

And I do like the idea of casual difficulty where the AI isn’t getting these material cheats at all, and you can create your hegemony or peaceful paradise in a more relaxed fashion. Even though Stellaris at its core is, I supposed, a dark and strange universe where beautiful civilisations rise than inevitably suffer dire and dreadful fates.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

I will agree that saying it did not get resource buffs was poorly worded, and I apologize if I was misleading. The thread in question claimed that AI empires simply get fleets gifted to them, however, which it really does not. Honestly, I didn't see the mineral maintenance discount as having any real significance before 2.0 because mineral maintenance from fleets was rarely a very big deal. Nowadays it very much is.

In 1.9, it's 2290, my income is +1318, and I spend 274 on mineral maintenance for ships. 137 per month is 10% of my income. Not as massive as in 2.0, but still pretty significant. If nothing else, it allows for more investment into economy.

 

[marvin the martian]

@Wiz So when people pointed out, they felt like the AI was just handed a big bad navy, because it should not be able to maintain something like that and still expand like it does, you chose not to explain why it feels that way and instead denied that it gets handed a fleet. And that's not lying. Because you did not outright say it doesnt cheat when it comes to having a fleet and merely implied it.
I'm sorry, but that's a somewhat upsetting bit of sophistry. Especially since it encouraged people to tell everyone to git gud and l2p who (correctly) suspected the AI was cheating in a meaningful way when it comes to having a big bad fleet, because they were wrong about the specific way it cheated - like that was the important bit. 'twas not.

Getting better at playing the game is still valid.
The AI doesn't get this kind of help to be OP, but to be competitive against a player who knows what he is doing.

 

[GloatingSwine]

@Wiz So when people pointed out, they felt like the AI was just handed a big bad navy, because it should not be able to maintain something like that and still expand like it does, you chose not to explain why it feels that way and instead denied that it gets handed a fleet.

I think there's a more complex set of things going on than "AI has a big fleet but can still expand", because the AI expands dumb because of poor resource prioritsation. It might functionally get a hundred or so minerals more a month than a player would with the same empire but it's going to spend them on something stupid that doesn't actually help it.

 

[Lordban]

And I do like the idea of casual difficulty where the AI isn’t getting these material cheats at all, and you can create your hegemony or peaceful paradise in a more relaxed fashion. Even though Stellaris at its core is, I supposed, a dark and strange universe where beautiful civilisations rise than inevitably suffer dire and dreadful fates.

Meanwhile, us masochists keep going on in Insane, where the AI has 100% extra resource and science income, twice the naval cap and half the maintenance. And we LOVE it!

 

[Wizzington]

That would be greatly appreciated.

Done.

 

[Ex Mudder]

Oh yeah, the AI also knows the status of (non-empire owned) hostiles in systems even if it doesn't have sensor range of them, so it'll know if for instance a space amoeba is cleared out of a system and send science ships to explore it. Otherwise it obeys sensor range rules.

I'd like to see this toned down or put on a delay, it's annoying to clear a system or find a precursor homeworld only to have a bunch of other science ships show up before mine does. If they scan planets before me, I get a reduced chance of anomolies, right? It is also immersion breaking for me to see the AI get such a noticeable "cheat" even if it doesn't help them much. Esp as I sometimes have to send my ships wandering around looking for monsters who have already been killed.

 

[Wizzington]

I'd like to see this toned down or put on a delay, it's annoying to clear a system or find a precursor homeworld only to have a bunch of other science ships show up before mine does. If they scan planets before me, I get a reduced chance of anomolies, right? It is also immersion breaking for me to see the AI get such a noticeable "cheat" even if it doesn't help them much. Esp as I sometimes have to send my ships wandering around looking for monsters who have already been killed.

There's no real way to 'tone it down' as the AI either knows or doesn't know, and if it doesn't know it will need a bunch of code for re-checking hostile status of every system it has intel on, which just isn't worth it. Delaying it is possible.

 

[Thyriel]

Meanwhile, us masochists keep going on in Insane, where the AI has 100% extra resource and science income, twice the naval cap and half the maintenance. And we LOVE it!

So what? I did this as well, but I do not enjoy it all the time. Did you want to tell us poor mortals that you are so much better? Because if you feel the need to brag about something as insignificant as a computer game than I very much suspect your life is a very very sad affair. Gid good looser, right? That is what you wanted to say? Sad....

 

[-Marauder-]

Oh, so this thread is rude and non-constructive? And how constructive it was to lie to people, who asked about AI actions and capabilities, to organize a theater of trolls, insulting people just because assumption of non-transparent capabilities of AI has awfully hurt their fanboyish feelings?

Not just that, people posted links to threads who talked about this in the past where he responded and his tone aswell as reaction was extremely hostile, rude and aggressive. Far more so than any of the supposedly "rude" behaviour in this thread. Now this could have been put down to frustration and annoyance, which still doesn't excuse this behaviour which we've seen from him quite regularly and other people would get punished for but what makes this all that much worse is: He was either outright wrong or dishonest! Looking at it in that context, the whole behaviour up till this point is inexcuseable.

And that isn't even the only issue here. The other is that the Ai got a MASSIVE buff across the board on all difficulties with the 2.0 changes. On insane they already had double production, lower tech cost etc. With the changes made, their 50% off turned from a minor buff into a huge one. Increasing their efficience from somewhere around 100%~ bonuses to roughly four times that. As they don't suffer the consequences of increased maintenance, increased research cost etc anywhere remotely as much as the player does.

They completely changed the formula on all difficulties but did not adjust the Ai bonuses to account for this.

 

[Lordban]

So what? I did this as well, but I do not enjoy it all the time. Did you want to tell us poor mortals that you are so much better?

Or, I could be happy in pointing out that there's a difficulty mode for players who wish to play casually, and still a difficulty level for those who want to bang their heads in a wall, and everybody gets something out of it?

In other terms: your suspicions are entirely off the mark

 

[Thyriel]

Or, I could be happy in pointing out that there's a difficulty mode for players who wish to play casually, and still a difficulty level for those who want to bang their heads in a wall, and everybody gets something out of it?

In other terms: your suspicions are entirely off the mark

If that is the case, then I apologise.

 

[Onkel_Bums]

So what? I did this as well, but I do not enjoy it all the time. Did you want to tell us poor mortals that you are so much better? Because if you feel the need to brag about something as insignificant as a computer game than I very much suspect your life is a very very sad affair. Gid good looser, right? That is what you wanted to say? Sad....

He is not implying that he is winning all the time. The term "masochist" indicates that he actually enjoys having his ass handed to him. Just as other players enjoy playing on a level field, others like the challenge. Nothing to do with "git gud".