It would be really cool if the human opponents would finally use their skills (dash, quick aim, boom blast, throwing turrets, …). After all, the Pure also use skills, if only from equipment. Then you wouldn’t need to increase the number and end-game human opponents would also fill up like such.
But they use it, I saw often Synedrion or NJ Sniper using their Quick Aim or dashing assaults (often pretty useless dashes, but that is more an AI issue), if they are high enough leveled. The problem is more, that these higher levels are pretty seldom, mostly you only engage LVL 1 soldiers and some rare with LVL 2-3.
Never noticed.
But I have to say: I kill them mostly in the same turn as I spot them. So mostly I see the human AI in the hidden area.
The most difficult mission I had against a faction was incredibly against synedrion (usually regarded as the weakest one), because I went mostly against snipers and hidden infiltrators. They were all attacking from very far away, and while dealing with snipers was easier, the infiltrators were more of a problem because I had to put my dashing assaults in danger to find them. So, I agree that better skill and equipment use (which translates to better AI) would fit nicely to make these missions harder.
However better AI is much harder to implement than an enemy numbers increase, so…
Well, I got 2 Helios within the first 4 days with no repercussions. I too have build Manticores within the first 2 weeks previously, but that means no equipment because that Manticore is quite expensive and keeps your production facilities busy. It really is a different ball park.
I think simply increasing the difficulty is not a solution. You can still get lucky with the mission itself or find a vehicle prior to that or some such. The problem with those missions is that it does not make sense that the factions are totally fine with a raid like that.
5 Likes
I think if the player wants to engage in save scumming, that’s his choice, but if you take a high risk mission you should have an appropriate reward.
They wouldn’t be totally fine with it. Right now the penalty is too small and can be more than compensated by being a jerk to the other Factions.
However, something like straight out war for stealing an aircraft would basically lock out many players from these missions.
2 Likes
Did you notice that Infiltrator AI is broken? They never use spider drones,
I’ve only seen drones in the Real Virus mission, Malthusian Revolt, Synedrion map
That is right, 2nd aircraft changes the entire dynamic, stoling Helios or producing one Manticore with only 1-2 Production plants makes a different game.
that is why I suggested a rescue mission or black market or incentive through factions to get a second aircraft in the first 2 weeks in game
4 Likes
One additional Idea:
Instead of showing all PX bases with the second PX research (forget its name, bit I’m sure you know it 
), you get revealed only one base (Edit: of course close to the starting base), that contains one Manticore and maybe also one Scarab, probably both somewhat broken so that you have to spend resources to get them up. This can be combined with an additional mission on the ground to take the access lift or something similar to the Pirate King mission in the base, probably here you can overtake the scarab.
So many possibilities … 
Edit:
This second base then can reveal all other bases.
1 Like
Well, yes, that is the point ! If you are unwilling to handle the consequences, you should not steal that aircraft …
But as long as the state of war is not reversible, also in my opinion this solution is too tough for many players.
I would rather prefer a significantly larger loss of reputation, really significantly larger, at least about -20 and increasing every time when you do it again. At least you are at war when you try to abuse this.
Or the 2 strike model that @VOLAND mentioned in his OP.
Or something combined.
2 Likes
What about other acts of aggression? Like stealing tech, raiding, or sabotaging?
Because if stealing aircraft = war, then so should everything else.
But then you can’t mix interactions of different kinds with the factions… You are either at war, or you are advancing towards alliance.
2 Likes
yes, never seen them using it, usually they hit me with poison crossbows, a lot of shots…
My proposition on canny was to lose about 40-50 rep when attacking a faction in any way. Remember, newbs would probably get into war with 2 attacks, but any more experienced player would attack only after having at least 25% and revealing all base locations. That’s why the number of rep loss must be high, or have a cap to war as you suggested. I also proposed there that the higher your alliance, the higher the reputation loss, and also each attack would’ve increasing consequences too. Attacking while allied could mean immediate war as it would be treachery.
4 Likes
I did not say anything about an outright war. You did. Can you really not think of any other forms of retaliations other than a perpetual war ? I doubt it 
Relations should not be binary. What works with positive developments ( see all bases -> get some tech -> cooperation ) can work in the negative too. Havens could for example refuse to offer recruits, cancel trade, sanction you in a way that you simply cannot refuel at their bases and thus hinder your reach considerably. All of those measures can be temporary and accumulative.
There has to be a clear trade off other than just the risk of losing that mission because you can also evacuate - and I’d like to keep that feature.
Sorry for editing while you are responding
1 Like
If I’m not mistaken, that is already the case, except for the last bit because you can make pit stops even at Pandoran bases. I definitely recall not being able to recruit at an Anu Haven because of negative rep.
The problem with negative rep as a consequence is that it is easy to compensate for… Even a - 20 rep is 2 nests and a Lair, or a Citadel and a Nest…
That’s why I was thinking about the 3 strikes approach - you get the negative rep (say, - 20) and if you do it more than twice you are out (i.e. war).
And if you want to compensate the negative rep via doing wrong to the other Factions, you use up the strikes with them and also lose rep.
Isn’t that enough of a consequence?
LOL, no prob 
Edit:
Yeah, but if you Evac you lose the rep and you get 1 strike
Well, I’m not really talking about using that rep system because it moves way too slowly. That is why stealing a craft has no consequence. That reputation hit - even when they make it hit harder - is compensated for quickly enough just by naturally progressing through the game.
Consequences should be immediate but temporary. They could also be local and randomized while creating a side story for your campaign. A haven you stole an aircraft from could decide to team up with all the other havens of the same faction on that continent and block you for a set duration.
This thought leads to quite some complexity but it’s an example of what I think would be a good system to strive for. It can start simple with disabled trade, disabled pit stops, disabled recruits with a timer. Throw in any amount of creativity in order to refine and make it adequately inconvenient for the offender. I just don’t think reputation alone really cuts it to make diplomacy in general interesting in the long run.
5 Likes
I like this idea a lot, local attitude vs global attitude,
hostile havens attacking PX or denying collaboration, their own decisions after aggresions
What do you mean with ‘it moves way too slowly’?
And how does that fit with ‘is compensated for quickly enough’?
If I’m not wrong you get the -rep immediately when you go aggressive against a heaven. It is actually only pretty low with -6 for the faction, so that is has almost no real immediate effect. If the penalty would be much higher then you would have of course an immediate but temporary effect. Negative reputation on heavens means no trading and no recruitment.
When we take your example with the aircraft stolen in the first week. If you would get -20 faction rep for this act (or more), then any heaven of this faction would deny trading and recruiting immediate until you up again to positive reputation. The only way I know to compensate this quickly in the first two weeks would be a sabotage against one of the other faction. But then you have the same problem with this faction and their heavens (assuming you get high reputation losses for any aggressive act).
That was the reason why I never stole any aircraft early in the game in one of the previous versions of the game, where you got reputation losses of -15 for the faction and -30 for the heaven for any aggressive act. It blocked trading and recruiting at all heavens of this faction for a pretty long time.
But:
This sounds pretty nice. More local consequences, more differences, more possibilities 
It would be somewhat irritating if I can’t pit stop at a ‘hostile’ heaven but the Pandoran Nest close by
I don’t think you can do something like that as long as the flight system is actually what it is.
1 Like
I mean, that you get like -6% or something for stealing an aircraft. This is not enough to be perceived as clear trade-off. Even if you increase that number, you can gain it back rather quickly unless you make that hit so significant that you might as well have that binary war-piece system that ought to be quite boring. Negative rep on a haven is not really that big of a deal for your first 2 heists because there are many of them. I certainly did not notice any negative feedback and like I said till then I avoided stealing them too.
Didn’t think about that, but realism ? I think that ship has sailed. You can lore it by saying Pandorans don’t “think” like that in human terms. They don’t do diplomatic sanctions.