Currently the Hard AI does indeed appear to get a 50% income bonus (Unfair gets 100%). This has not always been the case (no bonus in 1.0), and the changelog comments were accurate at the time. It probably just missed the changelog, due to the great number of changes in 1.1 (haven't checked 1.05).

Thanks Kryo

My tests were performed with 1.05 (should have mentioned this)

1.05 here too

Hey mazUO, I think U O Me a... Oh something.

Regards, Obi (B-Have) LOL

Seriously, How about a comment. And sorry about the misspelling. That was an honest mistake.

Thanks wnmnkh, for getting this clarified (& Iztok for originally pointing it out).

I'm not sure how you seriously think I owe you anything. I said all along it was a possibility but that you hadn't presented proof of it. Kryo has now posted and suddenly official comments are valid in your eyes.

Good for you.

only when they make sense!   

Aww... thread is no longer entertaining.

I suppose I should note that it does look that way for me in 1.09 as well.

Well, this shouldn't be entertaining at all, since this vicious circle has always happened in any RTS forum...

------Teh vicious circle-----
an incident happens,
followed by reports,
reporter getting bashed by people who just don't bother to try themselves,
do not trust reliable proofs,
eventually fool themselves,
forget about this incident....
and do the same thing again in the next incident.
--------------------------------------------

You know, if this is the first time you see, it may be entertaining. But if you see this whole thing like more than ten times, it gets boring in the end. :/

My final word on this: TEST YOURSELF WHEN IN DOUBT.

I find it entertaining 'cause I'm a very mean person at heart.

LOL Kitkun!

I found it entertaining, as well...and myself refused to post the ever-present but not stated this time "anecdotal eidence, while eventually may be proven to be true,is proof of nothing but observational possibility and not fact; technically, the only way it could have been proven in any other way aside from anecdotal, is to have the hard calculations in front of you and to prove them out with example...look up the definition of a proof..."

But the insult-fest made me avoid saying as much.

It's funny that one side all but calls the devs liars and that they obviously don't know their own product...until they agreed with them...then all is suddenly hunky dorey.

*shrugs* I like to observe basic human nature self-destruct on itself... hehe

Well, I don't.
It was all about the graph showing that AI is definitely getting resource boost, and dev's saying does not change anything about my thought. I never said dev's right because now they are saying that AI indeed gets 50% resource boost.

As I said, as a one who did some programming, I wouldn't trust myself that much for my own product. It is always good to hear users' findings and opinions.

Umm, I wasn't calling the devs liars; I was calling the people blindly ignoring everything else simply because that statement existed fools. There are any number of reasons that one line may not be applicable to the state of the game as it exists today, and I didn't really care if it was due to intentional misdirection or not.

As for the proof, had anyone in the other camp put forward the argument that we never proved an unfair bonus, only that hard was earning more income, I would have agreed. But they were unwilling to even concede that much and so failed to make the only legitimate argument available. Alas, we had no other attempts at explaining this extra income (remember, I asked for one) so those of us who were willing to ignore dogma were left with one option: wait for someone with access to the code to confirm what we had already reasoned.

Which is what I was doing...waiting. Since I don't have access to the code that produces the numbers, anything you, I, or anyone else could provide would merely be anecdotal evidence, not "proof" in the strict sense of the word.

Part of the reason I stayed out of it was the rampant "this is proof!!!one!11!" and the name-calling (not point fingers, but it was there, and ample). I read the posts, looked at the numbers, and had people been only saying "from what I see, it appears that this has changed and is missing from the changelog...can we get a stardock or ironclad rep to check this out?" I'd have freely joined.

But that's me. When it's left that what people are saying is opinion and anecdotal information, I happily join debates. I get funny about semantics when debating. Just ask anyone I work with... lol

Edited to add: I'm actually glad it was confirmed that Hard AI is getting a boost...I thought I was going a tad crazy when it's coming at me with Heavy Cruisers before I can even get a 3rd planet under my control. lol (yes! I lose to Hard AQI! :p)

This post was hilarious, thank you for everyone entertaining me. What's more funny is that people were using v1.05 to PROVE something in the beta feedback section...

Kitkun and Annatar, I congratulate you for putting up with all the nonsense on these forums.

well, for my own defense, the thread that originated that discussion was created BY ME in the general discussion. Someone else created a thread here and linked it to my own. I never said I was in beta.

So your definition of "anecdotal evidence" includes repeatable experiments that produce quantifiable observational data? Hmm, then I think, by that definition, every branch of science is based on anecdotal evidence.

Generally in actual science, a hypothesis based on observational data doesn't have scientists jumping up and down screaming how it's now fact and you're ignorant and stupid if you don't accept it.

Considering you're talking about the scientific method, I expect you should know this.

The scientific method in 4 easy steps:
1) observe some phenomenon.
2) create hypothesis that explains this phenomenon and makes further predictions about the system
3) perform experiment to test a prediction and observe & record results
4) discard/revise the hypothesis if experimental results disagree with prediction.

So please, tell me again how weak a hypothesis based on observational data is. Too bad Darwin's dead, we need to inform him all that stuff he wrote about what he saw on the Beagle was a waste of time.

And generally in science, people don't disregard observations and experimental results because they conflict with what some higher power supposedly said a long time ago. At least, not so much in this century.

My faith in humanity to find something to argue about is restored.

LOL, Kitkun, Its getting entertaining again.   

I've got to admit, that in the midst of this I really wondered what people considered as "proof". What more did they need? What was their definition of "proof"?

I guess I've concluded, that for programmers, it isn't "proof" until they can see the actual code??

(That surely isn't the only "proof" for me).

*facepalm

Nice stretch there trying to compare belief in God to written notes from the developers about a game they designed. I must have missed the patch notes section in the Bible explaining how the world works. If you can't understand that a hypothesis that you believe matches your observations is not to be labeled a proven fact and then used as leverage to demean others who don't agree, I'm not sure what brand of science you've been paying attention to.

Anyway, it's been resolved via those mystical comments of the devs that you'd like to pretend are more of an analogue to allegory than to substance, that this is in fact real, so I'm not sure what else you'd like to argue about now.

and you were wrong, nothing left to argue about. I'm finished here too.