Defense Supply Mechanic

[chemical_art]

Keith, I still don't understand the tower mechanic that you describe. If it is per planet, why do you want lower mark turrets on lower worlds?

I must not understand something, because I don't see how that happens.

EDIT:

It's not just M + C, energy costs increase too. So both upfront and over time costs increase with the turret mechanic. Is that not possible?

[keith.lamothe]

Keith, I still don't understand the tower mechanic that you describe. If it is per planet, why do you want lower mark turrets on lower worlds?

I must not understand something, because I don't see how that happens.

Because you still have the total cap per type per mark that currently exists, so you can't just plop down 1000 MkIII MLRS turrets on a normal cap 1HW game, regardless of control.

[keith.lamothe]

It's not just M + C, energy costs increase too. So both upfront and over time costs increase with the turret mechanic. Is that not possible?

Oh, right.  Yes, that would be possible.

[chemical_art]

Keith, I still don't understand the tower mechanic that you describe. If it is per planet, why do you want lower mark turrets on lower worlds?

I must not understand something, because I don't see how that happens.

Because you still have the total cap per type per mark that currently exists, so you can't just plop down 1000 MkIII MLRS turrets on a normal cap 1HW game, regardless of control.

That, ultimately, does not make an alternative to the chokepoint mechanic any more effective. It nerfs the current best strategy.

[Wanderer]

Keith, I still don't understand the tower mechanic that you describe. If it is per planet, why do you want lower mark turrets on lower worlds?

I must not understand something, because I don't see how that happens.

Because you still have the total cap per type per mark that currently exists, so you can't just plop down 1000 MkIII MLRS turrets on a normal cap 1HW game, regardless of control.

Unless you're going to significantly drop K costs for the turrets, I still can't see them ever beating out the mobile military, no matter what mechanic becomes involved.  Cap power would have to go from 'ooh, nice boost' to 'ohmygodIMustHaveIt!!!!'.  I have to agree with the earlier sentiments though, a dual capping of the turrets would be frustrating.  No, I don't have a better solution other than the exponential cost, either.  Whether that exponential price is in control points or m+c+e, it's the only 'other' solution to cap usage.  And really, any price in m+c I can eventually work past unless its slope is wicked steep, and energy costs are, well, that's up for debate.

[Wanderer]

Keith, I still don't understand the tower mechanic that you describe. If it is per planet, why do you want lower mark turrets on lower worlds?

I must not understand something, because I don't see how that happens.

Because you still have the total cap per type per mark that currently exists, so you can't just plop down 1000 MkIII MLRS turrets on a normal cap 1HW game, regardless of control.

That, ultimately, does not make an alternative to the chokepoint mechanic any more effective. It nerfs the current best strategy.

Depends on what adjustments are made to the cap volume and turrets when this is brought into play. 

[chemical_art]

Keith, I still don't understand the tower mechanic that you describe. If it is per planet, why do you want lower mark turrets on lower worlds?

I must not understand something, because I don't see how that happens.

Because you still have the total cap per type per mark that currently exists, so you can't just plop down 1000 MkIII MLRS turrets on a normal cap 1HW game, regardless of control.

With the turret mechanic, if you tried to put 1000 MK III MLRS's to replace each one would cost 11 times M + C.
More importantly, take a look at the energy cost.

To simplify and make accurate:
each mlrs normally takes 1 energy.
Normal energy cost: 1 * 198 = 198

Turret exponential cost: 11 * 1000 = 11000!

So the cost over time would be...56 times the current cap!

[keith.lamothe]

Unless you're going to significantly drop K costs for the turrets, I still can't see them ever beating out the mobile military, no matter what mechanic becomes involved.

That is another thing to consider.  Your low level of turret research is not (I think) common, but the fact that 9+ is beatable with <= 3K of turret research would indicate that pretty much whatever is done with the turrets has a limited impact to some extent.

But a lot of other players use them pretty extensively, and by the numbers they generally have three times as much health and three times as much dps as similar-tech fleet ships.  If 3x isn't enough, what is?

Another thing that I think is more interesting is finding a way to let players use turrets offensively in a balanced fashion.  Not that turrets would ever be as offensively useful as fleet ships, but they could be less completely a defensive choice.  And thus appeal more to the hypothetical offensively-minded player

[Eternaly_Lost]

Unless you're going to significantly drop K costs for the turrets, I still can't see them ever beating out the mobile military, no matter what mechanic becomes involved.

That is another thing to consider.  Your low level of turret research is not (I think) common, but the fact that 9+ is beatable with <= 3K of turret research would indicate that pretty much whatever is done with the turrets has a limited impact to some extent.

But a lot of other players use them pretty extensively, and by the numbers they generally have three times as much health and three times as much dps as similar-tech fleet ships.  If 3x isn't enough, what is?

Another thing that I think is more interesting is finding a way to let players use turrets offensively in a balanced fashion.  Not that turrets would ever be as offensively useful as fleet ships, but they could be less completely a defensive choice.  And thus appeal more to the hypothetical offensively-minded player

The only turrets I unlock are the ones that I need for my Spire Fleet, they just don't have the real staying power and more imporantly, far too often I am busy waiting for metal or crystal so I don't want to waste it on building something that can't attack and cause me to have to wait longer then build something that can attack and defend.

The only time I start to put out turrets is right before I do a shard scan or I have hit the cap on every ship including Mercs. Spending resources on turrets tends to not be worth it. I can send my Mercs to deal with a wave, I can't send my turrets, and they take too long and cost too much to rebuild them for wave defense.

If I was going to rebalance them so I could use them, I would make them powerful, but a small cap per planet. Enough to handle a decent size wave without fleet support if you spent enough K on them, and you can put the exact same defenses on each planet and not have to worry that sticking spider turret A here will stop you from building one here.

Then I would throw in an option for an overcap, like the tower you suggesting, where your caps on that planet rise the more you build but they cost upkeep, so if you want a turret ball that can take Hunter killers and Mothership waves, you could in theory build one. When one goes pop however, all Turrets over the cap stop working. So the AI can stealth strike them before sending in the main forces.

That still has the wall time cost issues to deal with however.

[Wanderer]

Unless you're going to significantly drop K costs for the turrets, I still can't see them ever beating out the mobile military, no matter what mechanic becomes involved.

That is another thing to consider.  Your low level of turret research is not (I think) common, but the fact that 9+ is beatable with <= 3K of turret research would indicate that pretty much whatever is done with the turrets has a limited impact to some extent.

But a lot of other players use them pretty extensively, and by the numbers they generally have three times as much health and three times as much dps as similar-tech fleet ships.  If 3x isn't enough, what is?

I'm starting to see a different pattern as to why stalemates occur so often.  In ~95% of my games, I spend 2000 k on turrets.  Grav I, Tach I, Basic II, HBC I.  That's it.  FF's I have invested more in depending on the scenario.  Everything else is spent on something that can hurt the enemy long before it can hurt me.

If you count Fortresses as turrets I usually spend 5000 k.

Turrets, by their nature and current usage, are only useful in a handful of scenarios, whereas fleet ships, while underperforming in these tasks comparitively, are much more effective over a long game where waves aren't arriving every 5 minutes (AI 9+ at 200 AIP, for example...) and you'd like to use them elsewhere.
- Limited location(s) wave attacks
- CPA defense behind chokepoint
- Exogalactic defense behind chokepoint
- Counterstrike defense

Note, without the chokepoint, your ability to defend from ExoGalactics and CPAs is very limited unless you invest very heavily in that turret count, thus having to up marks.  One of those is fixable, you murder everything behind a few chokepoints so the CPA can't spawn behind you, thus offensive.  The exos you'll have to intercept with your fleet.

However, your fleet can maneuver to multiple defensive positions and deal with a much wider range of situations. 

Let's take a look at a scenario, one that helped me make the decision between turrets vs. fleet.  When I was first starting, one of the things that was breaking my weaker builds when I tried to turret everywhere were starships.  They'd just plow through any turret build I had.  The counter to heavy starships is laser turrets.

(All discussion from Normal/Normal cap/speed) Laser Turrets are 6000 x 3 with a static 12k range in a system.  We won't discuss heavy armor vs. a 3 way splitshot.  In multi-entrance system that means you're parking on your cmd station, not the wormhole for full effect of said laser.   That's 18k with a 2.4 modifier for heavy/ultra-heavy.  43,200/4 second recycle = 10800 DPS optimal each.  Now, to upgrade Lasers to II and III will cost you 6000 K.  We'll get back to the whole 'split systems' issue shortly.

That gets you an additional 21600 for the MK IIs and 32400 DPS for the MK IIIs.  The mk I cap gets you roughly 1.05 mill in DPS optimal, and with the x2 + x3 you get about 6 mill optimal DPS.  The research got you 5 mill in DPS, on a unit that can't move, limited range, and an average 750,000 health per unit (196 of them).

This was for the price of the Bomber III upgrade.  Bomber III, alone, is ~ 1.12 mill DPS optimal (78*(28800/12)*6) for the same units.

How does 1 mill beat 5 mill?  A few ways.
1) Armor.  The bomber III at ~500k in HP is lighter than the two marks combined above for the equivalent K.  However, it has twice the armor rating.  Survivability becomes roughly a wash, particularly since the laser turret being forced to defend at the cmd station instead of wormhole can get sniped by anything with better than 12k in range.
2) Armor type.  The best thing to kill a bomber with is fighters.  Fighters die in a light breeze.
3) Command Grade multipliers.  The Turret has a 0.1 multiplier against command grade.  Ever try to stop an H/K with a turret?
4) If I'm trying to defend 5 close systems with those turrets, I've diluted their firepower to 1 mill per system unless I've chokepointed.  With bombers, I can react to each system with now equivalent firepower AND THEN go do something else with them when I'm not under attack, like kill a fortress or a forcefield.  That's only 5 systems.  The average game wants 25+ systems taken.

My fleet is reactionary and requires more management.  It does, however, hold up across multiple defensive points equivalently or better for the same K price.  That's how they fail the research test.  Caps are too low for a good spread, and too weak to invest in until you've literally filled your fleet.  They are not equivalent in a choke-point entry, however, and there turrets shine... but I'm busy killing things with my shiny fleet.  With enough grav turrets I can buy my fleet time to get home if a max-time comes in.

Another thing that I think is more interesting is finding a way to let players use turrets offensively in a balanced fashion.  Not that turrets would ever be as offensively useful as fleet ships, but they could be less completely a defensive choice.  And thus appeal more to the hypothetical offensively-minded player

Woot woot!

[Diazo]

I just had a thought.

What about a wave bonus based on attack frequency?

By this I mean each system has a "Previous Wave Attacks Bonus" that goes up by 2% every time that system is targeted by a wave and down by 1% every time a different system is attacked by a wave. This means that waves get bigger if you only have a single chokepoint system, stay roughly the same with two exposed systems and goes down if you have more systems exposed.

This would increase the danger for those who play the chokepoint system and mean the AI would eventually be able to threaten it as the wave got bigger and for those playing multiple fronts the waves would stay as normal.

Or even allow this "Previous Wave Attacks Bonus" to go negative so that multiple fronts actually means smaller waves.

The logic being that if the AI keeps getting stymied at a system, it's going to throw bigger forces at it to break that system.

This would require thought on the balance front and on how to keep it from being exploited (or even if it's a good idea) but it is a way of scaling waves to get bigger for the map types with fewer connections.

D.

[Wanderer]

One thing to keep in mind for Dazio's idea is that bonus percentage + AIP increases can significantly explode the raid size.  Another is to consider a ceiling for the increases.  Chokepoint systems rarely, if ever, move.

That doesn't address, however, the fact that chokepointers will be more inclined, instead of less, to 'overpopulate' a single system.

[TechSY730]

I think some things that has come to light are that
a) Turrets are too weak to spread around, thus nearly mandating a single chokepoint approach. Either they need a higher cap or more strength individually, or both
(the mechanic being proposed, some variation of it, or some other mechanic that limits single planet "maximum defensibility with turrets" may be needed if strengthening turrets in this way proves to make single planet "mega-chokepoints" overpowered)
b) The cost of lacking mobility is so high, that higher mark turrets, even with their better cap DPS compared to fleet ships, are usually not worth their current K costs
c) Hunter-killers, astro-trains, and motherships REALLY need something different than command-grade armor, though they do need a VERY good armor type. (See http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=6798#c21281 for one proposed solution, introduce a new hull type)
d) Better advertise the fact that there are other defensive approaches than single-chokepoint setups, and in some cases they can be more effective (sort of like how guerilla tactics work pretty well, the game just does a poor job advertising it)

[Diazo]

One thing to keep in mind for Dazio's idea is that bonus percentage + AIP increases can significantly explode the raid size.  Another is to consider a ceiling for the increases.  Chokepoint systems rarely, if ever, move.

That doesn't address, however, the fact that chokepointers will be more inclined, instead of less, to 'overpopulate' a single system.

Well yes, that AIP + % increase would explode raid sizes eventually, but that was the point of my suggestion.  The game is thematically about avoiding the AI's notice. If the AI brings it's entire force against you, you get roflstomped.

Now, the increase would have to flatten out, a linear increase would very quickly get out of hand.

The point is that a chokepoint system is good for a while but eventually the AI is going to notice and blow your chokepoint away.

In game, this would force a more fluid defence to avoid the AI focusing everything it has on a single system and mean that the chokepoint still has meaning but you can't rely on it the entire game, at least not in the same system.

I suppose the question has to be asked: What are we trying to accomplish here? Weaken the chokepoint, either directly or by given the AI a mechanic to get around it or are we trying to change the game so that a multi planet front is as effective as a chokepoint defense? And this would change the game, as it stands a single attack axis is simply easier to defend then a multi attack axis.

D.

[orzelek]

I think some things that has come to light are that
a) Turrets are too weak to spread around, thus nearly mandating a single chokepoint approach. Either they need a higher cap or more strength individually, or both
(the mechanic being proposed, some variation of it, or some other mechanic that limits single planet "maximum defensibility with turrets" may be needed if strengthening turrets in this way proves to make single planet "mega-chokepoints" overpowered)
b) The cost of lacking mobility is so high, that higher mark turrets, even with their better cap DPS compared to fleet ships, are usually not worth their current K costs
c) Hunter-killers, astro-trains, and motherships REALLY need something different than command-grade armor, though they do need a VERY good armor type. (See http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=6798#c21281 for one proposed solution, introduce a new hull type)
d) Better advertise the fact that there are other defensive approaches than single-chokepoint setups, and in some cases they can be more effective (sort of like how guerilla tactics work pretty well, the game just does a poor job advertising it)

Thats the post that really nicely summarizes issues with current strategy.. or rather why we are forced to use current strategies. Also cloaked command station would help immensely with in depth defense.