**Spoiler-Heavy** Discussion of the Showdown Devices

[orzelek]

I meant the ability to actually get the controller to some secure place.

If we can't protect them they will have similar issues as Adv Fabs. And this means that usefulnes varies on game settings/rng positioning etc..

Right, the point of them is to both make distributed defense more feasible (because they provide hefty per-planet firepower that doesn't detract from your main choke's available cap) and to make it more desirable (as that's how you keep the controllers).

It's possible that they need to give more turrets each, or as suggested elsewhere to give some of every core turret type, or something like that, but the point is to increase the viability (and desirability) of distributed defense.

It seems to be that they are double-edged sword. Instead of giving a cookie they give you a cookie but you can't eat it.
They force you to defend more locations to just have them. After that you need to pay costs and energy for their actual bonus. Are they worth enough to make defending their world feasible?

Even with distributed defense you want to choose where you defend usually. Showdown is meant to prevent that also so you have 4 planets to defend plus any planet you might have with controller or you need to resign from help of controllers.

I hope to be able to play a bit soon so I will see how this works in practice.

[keith.lamothe]

One thing to bear in mind is that the turrets remain operable even if the controller is lost.  You can't rebuild them without the controller, but it's better than nothing.

But yea, if distributed defense doesn't work for you then most of the beneficial structures in the game are irrelevant, these (and the showdown devices) included.

[orzelek]

But yea, if distributed defense doesn't work for you then most of the beneficial structures in the game are irrelevant, these (and the showdown devices) included.

This is main reason why I would prefer that capturables that are supposed to help in distributed defense are not themselves subject to it.

[keith.lamothe]

But yea, if distributed defense doesn't work for you then most of the beneficial structures in the game are irrelevant, these (and the showdown devices) included.

This is main reason why I would prefer that capturables that are supposed to help in distributed defense are not themselves subject to it.

If they weren't subject to it, it would be very hard to make them strong enough to help in it without being unbalanced

[Faulty Logic]

If they weren't subject to it, it would be very hard to make them strong enough to help in it without being unbalanced

I don't know about that. Honestly, I don't think they would be crushingly OP even if their turrets were free and dropped remains regardless of turret controller existence.

In most cases, they don't help you win that much (it's pretty hard to bring turrets to an AIHW fight), and in the cases they do help, their firepower isn't all that significant.

Certainly they are very unattractive compared to most fabricators, in their current (6.042) state.

However, in some games they would be a godsend (like if I ever touched crosshatch again).

[keith.lamothe]

If they weren't subject to it, it would be very hard to make them strong enough to help in it without being unbalanced

I don't know about that. Honestly, I don't think they would be crushingly OP even if their turrets were free and dropped remains regardless of turret controller existence.

In their current state, but in their current state are they "strong enough to help in it"?

[Faulty Logic]

In their current state, but in their current state are they "strong enough to help in it"?

Yes, they reduce the necessary size of the response fleet. But make no mistake, without some fairly rare circumstances, you need a response fleet.

I would honestly try making the core turrets free (in m+c, maybe e) (and quietly remove them from the mobile builder menu, if they exist there), so the fab is situationally more useful than a mobile ship V fab, as a nice utility unit.

That would be a good third step toward making mobile defense possible (with the fourth and fifth being a mini-riot fortress and per planet actual fortress (or some decent always-availible per-planet dps)).

[LaughingThesaurus]

I think they should still cost energy, otherwise it's not even a decision on where and when to place them. Just put them everywhere-- may as well.

[Tridus]

I really don't think they should be free either, but they definitely need to be cheaper than they are right now if the goal is to push distributed defense. They're too expensive to distribute.

[chemical_art]

Looking at the costs in M+C and E, right now the controllers still favor choke points, not true distributed defense.

[Toranth]

Looking at the costs in M+C and E, right now the controllers still favor choke points, not true distributed defense.

The M+C costs are just build-time.  The energy cost would be a real preventer of distributing them everywhere, and in that they match the base Mk I turrets.  So while I hope that resource costs come down to build the turrets (16K to 70K per turret is very expensive, up to 4 million for a planet 4-cap), the more important thing to balance is the ongoing energy cost.

At 200 to 800 energy per turret, and up to 24 turrets per controller per planet, energy can add up FAST.  50,000 energy (1 matter converter, or -100/-100 m/c) will supply 250-ish turrets best case.  That's about 10 turret/planet caps, or 2.5 planets of a full 4-cap deployment.  If you have 10 planets, that's 40 caps, or at least 200,000 energy, or 4 matter converters (-400/-400 m/c), or 1 system energy collector + 1 matter converter (-100/-100 m/c + 20 AIP).  Worst case (Lightning, Flak, Sniper, Spider) is 46,000 energy per planet.

So, yes, distributing them everywhere has a cost.  I disagree that it still encourages chokepointing, however.  A 4-cap set of Core Turrets can do almost 2,000,000 DPS without multiplers.  That's basically a Mk II Fortress.  Putting that kind of defense only on your chokepoint, where you probably already have several times that much firepower, seems a waste to me.  I think this is the sort of thing you spread to anywhere that might be attacked, and more.  Especially on your planets with Uniques, where chokepointing would be both risky and wasteful.

Free, for that kind of ability, is just too much.  I will agree, though, that the costs need some fine-tuning, because the per-planet caps of Core Turrets mess up the calculations that were used to get the resource and energy costs for base turrets.



That said, is there a reason that 4 and only 4 and exactly 4 core turrets controllers are available per map?  Why not all 8, or a random selection between 1-8, etc.
And what do other people think of the idea of making controllers either give a general cap (+X turrets of any type) or a all-turret cap (+Y turrets of each type)?
Right now, like Fabs, there's major variety in what controllers are available.  But if you roll Flak, Lightning, and Spider on one map... well, there may be disappointment.

[keith.lamothe]

That said, is there a reason that 4 and only 4 and exactly 4 core turrets controllers are available per map?  Why not all 8, or a random selection between 1-8, etc.

Trying to keep there from being a fab on every single planet, mainly   Not that we're there yet, but it's been climbing kinda steadily.

But I think just seeding all 8 would actually be good to avoid problems where it just gives you ones you don't want.  The alternative is just making the controllers give a lower amount of all types, which we can do but feels less interesting.

[chemical_art]

The M+C costs are just build-time.  The energy cost would be a real preventer of distributing them everywhere, and in that they match the base Mk I turrets.  So while I hope that resource costs come down to build the turrets (16K to 70K per turret is very expensive, up to 4 million for a planet 4-cap), the more important thing to balance is the ongoing energy cost.

At 200 to 800 energy per turret, and up to 24 turrets per controller per planet, energy can add up FAST.  50,000 energy (1 matter converter, or -100/-100 m/c) will supply 250-ish turrets best case.  That's about 10 turret/planet caps, or 2.5 planets of a full 4-cap deployment.  If you have 10 planets, that's 40 caps, or at least 200,000 energy, or 4 matter converters (-400/-400 m/c), or 1 system energy collector + 1 matter converter (-100/-100 m/c + 20 AIP).  Worst case (Lightning, Flak, Sniper, Spider) is 46,000 energy per planet.

So, yes, distributing them everywhere has a cost.  I disagree that it still encourages chokepointing, however.  A 4-cap set of Core Turrets can do almost 2,000,000 DPS without multiplers.  That's basically a Mk II Fortress.  Putting that kind of defense only on your chokepoint, where you probably already have several times that much firepower, seems a waste to me.  I think this is the sort of thing you spread to anywhere that might be attacked, and more.  Especially on your planets with Uniques, where chokepointing would be both risky and wasteful.

Free, for that kind of ability, is just too much.  I will agree, though, that the costs need some fine-tuning, because the per-planet caps of Core Turrets mess up the calculations that were used to get the resource and energy costs for base turrets.



That said, is there a reason that 4 and only 4 and exactly 4 core turrets controllers are available per map?  Why not all 8, or a random selection between 1-8, etc.
And what do other people think of the idea of making controllers either give a general cap (+X turrets of any type) or a all-turret cap (+Y turrets of each type)?
Right now, like Fabs, there's major variety in what controllers are available.  But if you roll Flak, Lightning, and Spider on one map... well, there may be disappointment.

I really don't understand what you mean. You bring up that you can't use full caps on every planet, yet imply that for energy costs it is the same as MK I turrets. You say energy is the limiter, yet that in of itself doesn't favor chokepoints.

The fact is that if you don't have the energy to place them everywhere, then you want them on the minimal number of planets. It's better to have 40 turrets on one planet, if a choke, then 10 on 4 planets.

It is inherently preferring choke points.

[Faulty Logic]

The M+C costs are just build-time.  The energy cost would be a real preventer of distributing them everywhere, and in that they match the base Mk I turrets.  So while I hope that resource costs come down to build the turrets (16K to 70K per turret is very expensive, up to 4 million for a planet 4-cap), the more important thing to balance is the ongoing energy cost.

That hasn't been my experience with them. I have plenty of energy in my current game, and control a core spider fab. Construction is quite slow, because of m/c costs.

M/C is time, and time has value. Either directly from AIP/time, cpa buildup, exos, or just plain increased chances for something to go terribly wrong.

Free, for that kind of ability, is just too much.  I will agree, though, that the costs need some fine-tuning, because the per-planet caps of Core Turrets mess up the calculations that were used to get the resource and energy costs for base turrets.

Why is it too much? You've basically spent the AIP you would have spent gate-raiding (that is, dealing with waves) on acquiring core turret controllers (that is, dealing with waves). And you only retain the ability as long as you hold the controllers.

Looking at the costs in M+C and E, right now the controllers still favor choke points, not true distributed defense.

The game prefers chokepoints (and I don't think that's a problem), but controllers are a step away from them, certainly not favoring them.

I'd at least try them as free (except for energy) and if that breaks the game, reintroduce m/c costs gradually.

[LaughingThesaurus]

I don't see how people have serious energy problems. I get to a point in my games where I run out of knowledge to unlock things far sooner than I run out of energy. You're only running out of energy if you're running like 6 planet games or something, surely. If you're going ultra-low AIP, then you'll have ultra low energy, and an awful lot of complaints about energy cost. The thing is, if core turrets just didn't cost energy, you wouldn't even be making a decision. I've already said this. Making them free is going to result in a whole lot of mindless blobbing of turrets.