MkV turrets - K-waste feeling problem

[Pumpkin]

I'm sorry to bring that back, but I still feel MkV turrets are ill designed.

I'm so reluctant to unlock advanced turrets in early/mid-game when I know I might get MkV versions latter for 0 knowledge. Do you feel the same? (If you think I'm trying to fix a nonexistent problem, please say it!)

I remember there were a lot of change around the galactic/per-planet cap between 5.X and 6.0, and I must tell I'm very pleased with the per-planet cap. That makes that while players have the energy for it, they can defend as many planets as they want. And with 150,000 energy per planet, even with 0 fleet, defending all planets with all turrets isn't feasible, so players still need to make choices, even with an "unlimited" galaxy-cap. I think all that make up for a very good (both interesting and balanced) dynamic. I won't touch that planet-cap thing, because I think it's the core of what nicely works with turrets.

However, IMO, MkV turrets, as they currently are, bring all that down.
I have a couple of ideas that could fix that. Please tell me what you think of them.

(1) Advanced Turret Controller
There would be no more specific MkV turret controller. Instead, there would be two capturable Advanced Turret Controller per galaxy that would be like Adv.Facto and Adv.SShip Constructor but for turrets: controlling (of having hacked) one of these would allow the players to build MkV versions of every turrets they unlocked up to MkIV. (These generic controllers would be on CSG-B planets; that would make 6 CSG-B instead of 4 for a one player game). The MkV version would be just like current ones: one notch higher than MkIV and 1.5x the planet-cap, for the same individual E-price (and M-price).
This idea take advantage of the brilliant advanced-thing design: a target to capture that allows players to build higher versions if they spent the K up to the previous level. The problem of this idea is that it's balanced for fleet and starships, which are useful to build at all caps (MkI-III are still useful). However, with turrets, each unlock makes the lower levels much less interesting (only if players have a very high amount of available energy and want to increase the quantity of turrets on a planet). However, turrets are rather K-cheap, which would make unlocking MkIV for having the MkV less unfair.

(2) K-locked MkV Controllers
This idea is a middle ground between (1) and the current state of the game. I personally prefer (1), but I'm only one voice in the community.
The specific MkV turret controllers as they currently exist would remain the same and the turrets they grant too, but the MkV turret would only available if its MkIV version was unlocked by the players. That's just worst than what the game currently is, but that would solve the problem of the wasted K feeling. Unlocking MkII-III turrets in early game wouldn't be seen as potential future waste. Also, I personally think the MkV controllers are a bit overpowered as they are, right now, so I won't be sad to nerf them a little bit at the same time.

[Draco18s]

I wasn't really unlocking past Mk2 anyway (not since late 3.8 or early 4.0) but the Advanced Turret Controller thingerjigger might be an interesting idea.

[tadrinth]

I like the idea of the Advanced Turret Controller, but I don't think I would get much use out of it; I tend to spend very little K on turret unlocks. I don't think I've ever unlocked a MkIV turret.

[Toranth]

Hmm, while agree I find Mk V Turret Controllers to be a bit much in the "Of course I'm going to get them!" category, I'm not sure what there is really to do about it.

I am not a fan of either idea, for two reasons.  First, the Core Turrets currently work like Core Fleet units - capture a Fabricator, and you get the Mk V version of that turret only.  Changing that gives two nearly identical product lines that have different mechanics.
Second, gating the Mk V turrets behind unlocking Mk II-IV (ATC needed or not) is going to greatly reduce their usage.  Most people don't unlock many Mk III, much less Mk IV, turrets.  While reducing the awesomeness of the Mk Vs is a good idea, I don't think we want to reduce them "Only used on 10/10 Fallen Spire game" items.


Also, the Adv Turret Constructor replaces capturing multiple Fabs with capturing one ATC, or by hacking one ATC instead of multiple Fabs.  That's easier on both counts, which I think isn't what you were intending.

[Pumpkin]

I like the idea of the Advanced Turret Controller, but I don't think I would get much use out of it; I tend to spend very little K on turret unlocks. I don't think I've ever unlocked a MkIV turret.

Most people don't unlock many Mk III, much less Mk IV, turrets.

That's the problem I wish to solve.

First, the Core Turrets currently work like Core Fleet units - capture a Fabricator, and you get the Mk V version of that turret only.  Changing that gives two nearly identical product lines that have different mechanics.

I entirely agree. That's why I dislike the idea #2.

Also, the Adv Turret Constructor replaces capturing multiple Fabs with capturing one ATC, or by hacking one ATC instead of multiple Fabs.  That's easier on both counts, which I think isn't what you were intending.

Yes one capturable (AdvTC) would "replace" the many ones (CoreTC) but MkV turrets would also be K-locked, just like MkIV fleetships and starships. I'm afraid I wasn't accurate enough; sorry. (Also, the AdvTC hack would be merged with the AdvSShip/AdvFacto hack, which starts at 100 HaP.)

So, you think capturing the central AdvTC and unlocking some turrets up to MkIV would be too expensive for most players to bother? Coming from "free MkV for capture", sure. But look at the idea by itself; I believe it would be seen far below 10/10 Fallen Spire.

Sure, 7/7 vanilla is doable without turrets, but speaking of my personal experience, climbing up to 8/8 required me to raise my endgame AIP to "normal" levels (I rarely ended above 150, and often below 100 before first HW assault, but that's my strange, personal playstyle), and by consequence to use turrets; and the main reason why I'm still not completely comfortable at 8/8 is that I don't unlock enough turrets, I believe (well, that and the poor empire design choices, which are tied).

However, I consider your point seriously. Do you think it would be better (still considering (1) and the unique AdvTC) if we remove the MkIV turrets altogether and say "if players control or have hacked the AdvTC, they can build MkV turrets for all models that are unlocked up to MkIII"? Then, high mark turrets would still require the control or hack of the AdvTC but "only" the knowledge for turrets up to MkIII.

Do you think it would be better?

[Yavaun]

I have the same feeling and I would like to see a single markV turret fab but all markV locked behind K.

Disclaimer: I probably play a vastly different game than most. Coop, champion+normal and supremacy as our prefered victory (we won't end the game unless at least 50% of all systems belong to us - usually around 50 planets worth of K and 1000 AI progress for hacking). 

That said, I think turrets are much stronger than ships and unlocking all of them is always worth it and every mark can pull it's weight. Even when fighting 50k+ CPA (which we usually end up with) you'll do good to place all the turrets you can except maybe markIs because their damage matters. Starting at markIII they're worth the energy too so it's not like you're buying a small increase for disproportional cost.

With that in mind, I'll fully research all turrets anyway in the long run and I generally don't feel like it is a waste. However, if we were to cut short on systems and thus K then I'd get more selective about which turrets I really need this game and whether or not there is a markV controller to be captured/hacked would be a huge point to consider for me.

[Toranth]

Also, the Adv Turret Constructor replaces capturing multiple Fabs with capturing one ATC, or by hacking one ATC instead of multiple Fabs.  That's easier on both counts, which I think isn't what you were intending.

Yes one capturable (AdvTC) would "replace" the many ones (CoreTC) but MkV turrets would also be K-locked, just like MkIV fleetships and starships. I'm afraid I wasn't accurate enough; sorry. (Also, the AdvTC hack would be merged with the AdvSShip/AdvFacto hack, which starts at 100 HaP.)

Yes, I got that, sorry I wasn't clear.  The issue in my mind was one of Risk - with multiple Fabs, you need to protect them or lose the benefit.  Protecting 6-7 Fabs can be pretty hard, which is why it usually turns into "protect some, hack others" - but there is still the risk of losing the "some", and hacks do go wrong, so there is some risk in the "others" too.
On the other hand, it's much easier to capture and protect one ATC, or hack it.  Hacking even three Advanced Producers costs 100+150+225 = 475 HaP.  Hacking 5 Fabs costs about 400, and hacking 6 costs over 600 HaP.
Your proposed Knowledge cost is significant, though, which you may consider a fair trade off for decreasing the Risk of loss of the Fab.

So, you think capturing the central AdvTC and unlocking some turrets up to MkIV would be too expensive for most players to bother? Coming from "free MkV for capture", sure. But look at the idea by itself; I believe it would be seen far below 10/10 Fallen Spire.

Sure, 7/7 vanilla is doable without turrets, but speaking of my personal experience, climbing up to 8/8 required me to raise my endgame AIP to "normal" levels (I rarely ended above 150, and often below 100 before first HW assault, but that's my strange, personal playstyle), and by consequence to use turrets; and the main reason why I'm still not completely comfortable at 8/8 is that I don't unlock enough turrets, I believe (well, that and the poor empire design choices, which are tied).

If you keep AIP low until you are almost ready to end the game, you can get by with just Mk I stuff until fairly high difficulties.  Remember that CPAs can be dealt with through the judicious use of a Warhead or two, and Mk II stuff becomes almost unneeded.

On Diff 9-9.6, I unlock Mines, Grav Mk I, and HBC Mk I at the start, and Grav Mk II and HBC Mk II around the early->mid game transition.  By late game, I unlock Spider Mk I and one or two more Mk II turrets, but that's about it, unless I'm playing with Exowaves.  THEN Grav Mk III and HBC Mk III get unlocked earlier, and Needler/Laser Mk IIIs are likely to get unlocked.
Fallen Spire is where I unlock a lot of Mk III and Mk IV turrets, and much of that is to deal with the huge Exos and to unlock stuff for the Spire Capital Fleet.
My 10/10 games tend to be much more defensive, but that's because you're going to lose anyway so you might as well go down fighting.

However, I consider your point seriously. Do you think it would be better (still considering (1) and the unique AdvTC) if we remove the MkIV turrets altogether and say "if players control or have hacked the AdvTC, they can build MkV turrets for all models that are unlocked up to MkIII"? Then, high mark turrets would still require the control or hack of the AdvTC but "only" the knowledge for turrets up to MkIII.

Do you think it would be better?

I may not use them much, but I do like the (still shiny-new) Mk IV turrets, and would hate to see them go.
One idea is to leave the Mk Vs available as normal, and have your ATC make the Mk IVs available, like fleetships work.  Mk Vs may still need to be toned down for balance (per-system count reduction again?).
Another idea would be to reduce the K-cost of turrets... but last time that was discussed, it was pointed out that it would still make it entirely too easy to spam low Mark turrets, rather than paying for more expensive high Mark turrets.
Another idea was to limit the absolute number of turrets in a system.  That would certainly push for the usage of higher Mark turrets, just for the increased efficiency.  But then, once you'd unlocked a Mk II of a turret type, why would you ever use a lower Mark again?  That seems... wasteful, especially when you unlock Mk IV, and your Mk Is-Mk IIIs are all suddenly useless.


To me, the real problem with unlocking many turrets is that every K you spend on turrets is a K that doesn't help you win.  Sure, it helps you hold off the AI's attacks, but that only delays your eventual loss - only offensive unlocks actually help you win.
So, while it is worth it to unlock an offensive fleetship up to Mk III in order to get the Mk IV, it is rarely worth it to unlock up to Mk IV turrets.  It used to be more worth it when there were galaxy-wide caps, because you needed more turrets, just by numbers, to defend.  But since "MOAR TURRETS HERE" is always the best defensive strategy, it turned higher difficulty play into almost exclusively chokepoint whipping-boy games, which felt very restrictive.
So, while yes, I agree that Core Turret Controllers, especially Spider, Sniper, and Laser, are major targets for me to acquire, I don't think that locking them behind a K gate would make me spend the K on them.  I'd just settle for unlocking a few more Mk IIs instead, since they're so much cheaper.

[Pumpkin]

Also, the Adv Turret Constructor replaces capturing multiple Fabs with capturing one ATC, or by hacking one ATC instead of multiple Fabs.  That's easier on both counts, which I think isn't what you were intending.

Yes one capturable (AdvTC) would "replace" the many ones (CoreTC) but MkV turrets would also be K-locked, just like MkIV fleetships and starships. I'm afraid I wasn't accurate enough; sorry. (Also, the AdvTC hack would be merged with the AdvSShip/AdvFacto hack, which starts at 100 HaP.)

Yes, I got that, sorry I wasn't clear.  The issue in my mind was one of Risk - with multiple Fabs, you need to protect them or lose the benefit.  Protecting 6-7 Fabs can be pretty hard, which is why it usually turns into "protect some, hack others" - but there is still the risk of losing the "some", and hacks do go wrong, so there is some risk in the "others" too.
On the other hand, it's much easier to capture and protect one ATC, or hack it.  Hacking even three Advanced Producers costs 100+150+225 = 475 HaP.  Hacking 5 Fabs costs about 400, and hacking 6 costs over 600 HaP.
Your proposed Knowledge cost is significant, though, which you may consider a fair trade off for decreasing the Risk of loss of the Fab.

Your point on defending is interesting. However, considering how many times I heard about Chivalric and my personal save-reload, I have something against too many capturables-defendables. While it's an interesting risk-reward, having too many may sounds unfun, IMO.
Also, I personally believe your HaP calculations fall flat: nobody hacks 4 or more ATC. Do you? Personally, I think even with one cap of MkV turrets is enough; I rarely go specifically for one, I profit from what I incidentally capture because of other goals (like the ones that incidentally are in the cluster of planets I intended to get from the beginning) and if I really need some advanced turrets, I hack just one. Just like core fabricators: I never very rarely specifically capture or hack one. Maybe I'm not the norm, but honestly I don't think many AIW players capture and hack more than a couple of ATC/CoreFab per game.
However, with the Adv. Facto/SShipFab, while the hacking cost is very high (is it the highest? maybe), capturing is often the way to go, and there, defense is interesting, because you have one big thing you care.

So, you think capturing the central AdvTC and unlocking some turrets up to MkIV would be too expensive for most players to bother? Coming from "free MkV for capture", sure. But look at the idea by itself; I believe it would be seen far below 10/10 Fallen Spire.

Sure, 7/7 vanilla is doable without turrets, but speaking of my personal experience, climbing up to 8/8 required me to raise my endgame AIP to "normal" levels (I rarely ended above 150, and often below 100 before first HW assault, but that's my strange, personal playstyle), and by consequence to use turrets; and the main reason why I'm still not completely comfortable at 8/8 is that I don't unlock enough turrets, I believe (well, that and the poor empire design choices, which are tied).

If you keep AIP low until you are almost ready to end the game, you can get by with just Mk I stuff until fairly high difficulties.  Remember that CPAs can be dealt with through the judicious use of a Warhead or two, and Mk II stuff becomes almost unneeded.

On Diff 9-9.6, I unlock Mines, Grav Mk I, and HBC Mk I at the start, and Grav Mk II and HBC Mk II around the early->mid game transition.  By late game, I unlock Spider Mk I and one or two more Mk II turrets, but that's about it, unless I'm playing with Exowaves.  THEN Grav Mk III and HBC Mk III get unlocked earlier, and Needler/Laser Mk IIIs are likely to get unlocked.
Fallen Spire is where I unlock a lot of Mk III and Mk IV turrets, and much of that is to deal with the huge Exos and to unlock stuff for the Spire Capital Fleet.
My 10/10 games tend to be much more defensive, but that's because you're going to lose anyway so you might as well go down fighting.

Sure, I see your point. However please consider you're an advanced player. I'm also slowly using more special turrets (tractors and gravity, sometimes spider, not yet HBC and mines) and I understand that with greater skill, higher turrets become less and less needed in regular games. Your personal challenging level is 10/10, right? And you say you need to use advanced turrets at 10/10? Well, my personal challenging level is 8/8, and if I'm very comfortable with MkI turrets at 7/7, I need at least some at 8/8, and I bet I'll need more when I'll seriously get to 9/9. My point is: everybody need advanced turrets at its own challenging level. Advanced turrets matter in this game, even if they are the first things to become useless when someone becomes comfortable. That's why I think they deserve a little revamp, a little something that would make the choice of unlocking this or that turret interesting. Currently, I believe the MkV ATC suffocate the smaller, K-locked turrets. Which is sad. Not dire, but sad.

However, I consider your point seriously. Do you think it would be better (still considering (1) and the unique AdvTC) if we remove the MkIV turrets altogether and say "if players control or have hacked the AdvTC, they can build MkV turrets for all models that are unlocked up to MkIII"? Then, high mark turrets would still require the control or hack of the AdvTC but "only" the knowledge for turrets up to MkIII.

Do you think it would be better?

I may not use them much, but I do like the (still shiny-new) Mk IV turrets, and would hate to see them go.
One idea is to leave the Mk Vs available as normal, and have your ATC make the Mk IVs available, like fleetships work.  Mk Vs may still need to be toned down for balance (per-system count reduction again?).
Another idea would be to reduce the K-cost of turrets... but last time that was discussed, it was pointed out that it would still make it entirely too easy to spam low Mark turrets, rather than paying for more expensive high Mark turrets.
Another idea was to limit the absolute number of turrets in a system.  That would certainly push for the usage of higher Mark turrets, just for the increased efficiency.  But then, once you'd unlocked a Mk II of a turret type, why would you ever use a lower Mark again?  That seems... wasteful, especially when you unlock Mk IV, and your Mk Is-Mk IIIs are all suddenly useless.

Yeah. Sure. Also, the theoretical limit of turrets is now energy. Which is still an interesting limit: if a player has only some chokepoints, it's viable because a lot of energy is available for few exposed planets, and if a player has many frontier worlds, less energy is available per planet, which automatically limits the number of turrets. Zenith Power Generators kinda flaw that balance, but yet, it sounds okay. And reducing the K-cost isn't a good idea neither, of course: they are already very cheap.

To me, the real problem with unlocking many turrets is that every K you spend on turrets is a K that doesn't help you win.  Sure, it helps you hold off the AI's attacks, but that only delays your eventual loss - only offensive unlocks actually help you win.
So, while it is worth it to unlock an offensive fleetship up to Mk III in order to get the Mk IV, it is rarely worth it to unlock up to Mk IV turrets.  It used to be more worth it when there were galaxy-wide caps, because you needed more turrets, just by numbers, to defend.  But since "MOAR TURRETS HERE" is always the best defensive strategy, it turned higher difficulty play into almost exclusively chokepoint whipping-boy games, which felt very restrictive.
So, while yes, I agree that Core Turret Controllers, especially Spider, Sniper, and Laser, are major targets for me to acquire, I don't think that locking them behind a K gate would make me spend the K on them.  I'd just settle for unlocking a few more Mk IIs instead, since they're so much cheaper.

That point is crucial. Sure, I know it, but I guess I needed to read it black on white. (Or white on gray, it's okay too.) It just dawned on me that turrets must not be K-locked. Sure, they must be locked, but not K-locked, because Knowledge is, indeed, the resource for offensive power. Other things suffer from that: advanced stations (the military one suffer from the exact same turret problem; the logistical one also a little bit), economical upgrades (advanced metal extractors and economical stations), maybe scouts a bit; engineers and FField generators are fine but can fall in the same category. Fortresses and mines should be in the turret bag.

Well, okay, my (new) point is: they shouldn't use the same currency. For instance, what if all this stuff (turrets and defensive support, maybe economical) would be locked by something else than knowledge. Maybe we can imagine a new resource gathered exactly like the knowledge (or maybe something completely different) but exclusive for these turrets and defensive stuff. Players wouldn't be able to convert that currency for offensive firepower; it would be the game saying "as you progress, difficulty increases (AIP) but you are granted more firepower (ship types and K) and more defensive capability (energy and... that new resource). You'll deserve your win if you use your firepower (K) wisely and you'll survive if you use your defenses () as wisely."

Currently, AIP measures the raw progression of the game, Energy is mostly used for defense, Knowledge mostly for offense, Metal (and salvage/reprisal) ties time and combat efficiency, and Hacking is the "Jack of all trades" (can be converted to more K, more ship types and less AIP; not M and E however). The problem seems to be: K being used for both offense and defense, and offense being intrinsically a dominant strategy (just because the goal is to win, not to survive... that reminds me of the defender campaign type...), K is nearly always invested in offense, and K-locked defense is a (mostly) dead design space.

I think people use ATC not because MkV turrets are powerful, but because they don't cost K, which is entirely required for offense.

You know what? This post is already long enough. I'll try to come up with a well designed idea and I'll post it in the Mod section. Meanwhile, I wish to hear what you all think about that knowledge/defense problem. Do you think an independent resource for defense, economy and logistic (that wouldn't eat the offense-reserved K) would be interesting?

[Yavaun]

^ Splitting up eco, turrets and ship unlocks into different resources so everybody can have all of them right away would be a big hit to strategic diversity and co-op.

To me, the real problem with unlocking many turrets is that every K you spend on turrets is a K that doesn't help you win.  Sure, it helps you hold off the AI's attacks, but that only delays your eventual loss - only offensive unlocks actually help you win.

Huh. I use turrets offensively to great effect. As said before turrets are much stronger than actual ships so I wonder how what exactly adds up to this extremely different view?

[tadrinth]

Turrets are great for offense if you can beachhead. If you're running a low AIP game, you're probably not beachheading very often. 

They can contribute to offense by covering defense; if you have to leave mobile ships at home to defend, you can build more turrets to free up those ships.  Or, you can bring your whole fleet home for waves at your one whipping boy, and do all your offense between waves... that's what I've been doing in my current 9/9 game. 

[Pumpkin]

Do you imply that turrets somewhat count in offense and should keep their K price?

[Toranth]

I think Turrets do need to cost K, as it is a strategic and playstyle choice about whether to spend your hard-earned Knowledge on defenses, or on offensive units.
Defenses can allow you to rack up higher AIP, which can mean more K available later... at higher risk.
Offensive unlocks allow you to amass a stronger fleet earlier, so you can take down the AI Homeworlds while the AIP is lower... which is a different risk.

And, as others have pointed out, you can use turrets to Beachhead, which is sort of offensive.  In my opinion, though, if you can beachhead the AI Homeworld, you're strong enough to just TAKE the AI Homeworld.  I view Beachheads as a good way to deal with certain rare, random combinations of Guardposts/Fortresses/Units/Etc that can be particularly nasty; or as a way to harass the AI and restrict it's fleet movements.


Energy and HaP/positioning can be considered soft limits on turret usage, but... most games I hack 5-6 Fabs, and capture several more.  It is unusual that I do not aim for at least 3, more usually 4 Core Turret Controllers among those Fabs.  Hack or Capture depends on the positioning more than anything else.  Similarly, I build LOTS of Energy production.  By endgame, it is not uncommon for 50% or more of my total economic income to be spent on Energy production.
Which means that Core Turrets are attractive, because they are energy efficient, and (as you pointed out) they do not cost K.  They do cost HaP or AIP, though, so they aren't exactly "free".

Just to complicate things - a Fab hack and a K-Raid cost the same HaP, but 3000 Knowledge can get you 2 unlocks of most Mk IV turrets, while one Mk V unlock is only 25% better than one Mk IV unlock.  However, they're different hack types.  You can spend 400 HaP on 5 Fab hacks/5 K-raids or 400 HaP on 4 Fab hacks and 4 K-Raids.  If you spend some of the K on turrets, then you can use the Fab hacks to get offensive units.

[Pumpkin]

Just to complicate things - a Fab hack and a K-Raid cost the same HaP, but 3000 Knowledge can get you 2 unlocks of most Mk IV turrets, while one Mk V unlock is only 25% better than one Mk IV unlock.  However, they're different hack types.  You can spend 400 HaP on 5 Fab hacks/5 K-raids or 400 HaP on 4 Fab hacks and 4 K-Raids.  If you spend some of the K on turrets, then you can use the Fab hacks to get offensive units.

Your calculations sure are interesting. However my problem remains: if you capture or hack one type of turret, you'll never spend K on it; worst: if you spent K on a turret in early game, it's wasted if you hack or capture its MkV controller latter. My point is that: MkV turrets crush MkII-IV turrets on different resources. This is a case of dominant strategy, and it's bad. Just plain bad.

That's why I think the most potent solutions to that include to somehow K-lock the MkVs. Sure, resources can be converted from one to another (HaP to K, AIP to K, HaP to Mk++ and K to Mk++), but getting the higher waste the lower. And in AIW, where MkI matters (because of that genius design that is per-mark cap), this stands out as a very nasty problem.

Do you guys agree with that dominant strategy problem? We might discuss the potential solutions' ins and outs, but I want to make sure we agree on the problem.

And, honestly, paying 3,500 K per MkV turret sounds like a good nerf, and I believe MkVs deserve it. A bit harsh nonetheless, and that's why I said "no MkIV": it lowers the total K-lock for each MkV at 2,000 K. Maybe we could let MkIV be but allow MkV if players control/hacked the CTC and has the corresponding turret unlocked up to MkIII. Unlocking MkIV would be a way to approach MkV by paying extra K. Also, it makes a very good dynamic for strategy and planning: "if I unlock this turret up to MkIII-IV right now, I would have a very good defense for early game AND if I find the corresponding CTC, I wouldn't have to spend more K for the MkV" Just like the Advanced Factory and SShip Constructor, and that's why I proposed the ATC idea.

Yup. The more I think about it, the more I like this idea.
Let MkI-IV and CTC as they are, and just lock MkV unless MkIII is unlocked. Least change, small nerf, good dynamic.
I love it.

[Toranth]

Do you guys agree with that dominant strategy problem? We might discuss the potential solutions' ins and outs, but I want to make sure we agree on the problem.

On that point, I agree that Core Turret Controllers are bit too easy and convenient for solving your defense problems right now.  I don't know how serious a problem it is, but I do think it is worth discussing.

To me, there's not so much a need to nerf Mk V turrets as there is a need to make other strategies as viable.  Unlocking with K or capturing controllers should be equally good - neither should be the "obvious" choice.  Normal Fabs for Mk V ships handle that by making them random.  So even though grabbing the Core Protector Starship is an "Of course!" thing, those don't appear in most games, so your strategy cannot be built around getting them.
Unfortunately, there are far fewer Turret types than fleetships, so you can't just mix them in.

Yup. The more I think about it, the more I like this idea.
Let MkI-IV and CTC as they are, and just lock MkV unless MkIII is unlocked. Least change, small nerf, good dynamic.
I love it.

And now we're full circle

[Pumpkin]

To me, there's not so much a need to nerf Mk V turrets as there is a need to make other strategies as viable.

That's my feeling too. The solutions I proposed weren't meant to be nerf from the start; it just appears to me that the CTC are too simple, hence the dominant strategy that makes the other strategies less viable in comparison. We could either make all other strategies more easy or... well, nerf the dominant one.
There isn't a true need for a nerf, indeed, but it appears that all solutions I can think of end as slight nerfs for MkV turrets.

Unlocking with K or capturing controllers should be equally good - neither should be the "obvious" choice.  Normal Fabs for Mk V ships handle that by making them random.  So even though grabbing the Core Protector Starship is an "Of course!" thing, those don't appear in most games, so your strategy cannot be built around getting them.
Unfortunately, there are far fewer Turret types than fleetships, so you can't just mix them in.

That's a very interesting point. Then a galaxy should contain only a fraction of the turret types as MkV CTC. There is currently 8 CTC per galaxy, if I'm not mistaken. Having between 2 and 4 (maybe depending on the galaxy's size), randomly picked each game, would be a very interesting idea: if some advanced turrets are needed because of the AI ship types, capturing/hacking the CTC wouldn't be the dominant strategy because there is chances it's not available in that galaxy; then the K-locked MkIII-IV become a viable strategy. (Spider CTC will still be an "Of course!" thing, but that sounds fine if it has 1/2 or less chances to happen in a game.)
I love that solution too. Added to the pool... poll... poll's pool.
But it also sounds like a nerf, doesn't it?