Nebula pacing

[Faulty Logic]

Is is necessary to restrict nebula access? If so, how should we do it?

I think basing it off of AI command stations destroyed is the best solution, with the requirement that one AI station be destroyed per hull size increase. So:

Nebula 2 inaccessible until you destroy one station.
Nebula 5 inaccessible until you destroy another station.
Nebula 9 inaccessible until you destroy a third station.

A champion deepstrike increase would also be fine, though that simply makes taking full advantage of the champ at absurd AIP more difficult, not impossible.

[keith.lamothe]

What about simply preventing champion access to a nebula if it's in the deepstrike zone?  Heavily map-type-dependent, I suppose.

[chemical_art]

Darn you keith, I just brainstormed the same thing.

[Dichotomy]

I think map-dependency is inevitable. I personally don't see a problem with the nebulae and their access as it is now. Players can select the level they want by choosing the appropriate map type.

[chemical_art]

On the issue of map dependency, there are two differing variables:

Number of planets
Accessbility of planets.

For the number of planets, so many things are made easier in general from number of planets. However, some things are not enabled unless the number of planets are 30 or over. I wonder if it would be ok to make it so that a player could not go over a BB in a less then 30 game. There could be a pop up when a player selects less then 30 planets with a champion enabled. This however may just prove too restricitve so another form of restriction may not be needed. After all, it is possible with the base game to defeat the 10/10 ai with it having 300%...if you pick 8 HW and the map has 10 planets total.

As for accessibility, it is true that maps that are restrictive, like snake, would be hit much harder while worlds more connected are not as hit. I think this is a good thing. From a defensive standpoint it is so much better to get a chokepoint and that is most possible with those closed off maps. Having a tradeoff that has the open maps get a break would be a plus. If you are pursueing an ultra low aip game you could get away with a 80 world map with swapping 2 or 3 worlds, but those worlds would be chosen for their location and be dastardly difficult to defend since they are so far apart.

[TechSY730]

Even if this pacing thing doesn't go through, I think having an increased deep-strike responce if a champion (or possibly a higher tier fallen spire capital ship, as that would fit thematically) is part of the deep strike response. Possibly even tie that into number of nebulae completed ("increase the  increase" as more nebulae are completed).

I was also thinking about some sort of exo-defense fund if champions are involved, sort of like how the fallen spire exo-defense fund, but will gather much slower and has a much lower cap than the exo-defense fund due to FS (and of course, different conditions to "stockpile" it; that champ defense fund would have accumulation criteria similar to the new core response force or whatever it is called^*). And maybe increase the cap as the number of completed nebulae goes up.

Yes, neither of these ideas directly paces nebulae, but they would ensure that merely "rushing" to complete all the nebulae won't make the AI a pushover.

^*Come to think of it, could some of the activation criteria for the core responce force (a partial response on core planet and "important planet" attacks, but reserve the full deployment for HW attacks) be backported to the FS exo-defense logic? Not a 6.0 worthy thing, of course, but would be cool.

[Wanderer]

To kill the time pacing concept, and to allow for power-gamer and standard player alike to work (with) the system, what about a bit of hybridization?

Allow supply to boost the Champion.  Let the players affect each other with the gameplay.

[Toranth]

I do not think restricting access is necessary for gameplay purposes.

I will repeat my earlier concerns: 
Forcing an AIP increase at really high difficulties may be too much of a punishment for the bonus you get for a small number of nebula.
The current deepstrike system (10 threat/sec at Diff 10) means the player already has to pay a significant price to do nebula without popping planets.
I think making the AI stronger (Exowaves, AI Champions, more reserves, etc) is only useful if it replaces the already existing 20% bonus the AI gets.  Really, that's more than enough of an AI bonus.  It doesn't need any more.  In fact, that bonus needs to be tweaked, IMO.

I think a better alternative would be require the player to do something else, the same way the Fallen Spire campaign does with the Shard retrievals.  That would make it more fun, and restrict access.

Ideas for that:
Have a building on the homeworld that players would use to construct a 'Weak Wormhole Detector' or 'Drive Calibrator'.  Make it cost something large (1,000,000 resources, or 250,000 * #_nebula_completed or something).

Have the Champion required to search out the nebula using a Large module that causes the wormholes to appear.  Being forced to search out the wormholes would put a significant delay into the progress.

Have the AI have a building that blocks access to certain wormholes.  The player would be forced to search out and destroy this building to continue (similar to the Antagonizer).

[Oralordos]

Have a building on the homeworld that players would use to construct a 'Weak Wormhole Detector' or 'Drive Calibrator'.  Make it cost something large (1,000,000 resources, or 250,000 * #_nebula_completed or something).

Not everyone plays single-player. Anything that needs resources is probably out just because some people will be playing with champion only.

Have the Champion required to search out the nebula using a Large module that causes the wormholes to appear.  Being forced to search out the wormholes would put a significant delay into the progress.

While this might have been a good idea before, with the new large-starbase repairs mechanic, it's less so. Maybe with some tweaking it could work (have to scan every planet, probably not, it would get boring soon enough).

Have the AI have a building that blocks access to certain wormholes.  The player would be forced to search out and destroy this building to continue (similar to the Antagonizer).

This, actually sounds like a really good idea. I guess the trickiest part of this would be determining where to spawn it. I wouldn't want to have to go after the Wormhole Disruption Device and find out that the wormhole it unblocks is completely opposite side of the galaxy.

[Coppermantis]

Have the AI have a building that blocks access to certain wormholes.  The player would be forced to search out and destroy this building to continue (similar to the Antagonizer).

This, actually sounds like a really good idea. I guess the trickiest part of this would be determining where to spawn it. I wouldn't want to have to go after the Wormhole Disruption Device and find out that the wormhole it unblocks is completely opposite side of the galaxy.

Just make it spawn only within X hops of the wormhole.

[Winge]

Have the AI have a building that blocks access to certain wormholes.  The player would be forced to search out and destroy this building to continue (similar to the Antagonizer).

This, actually sounds like a really good idea. I guess the trickiest part of this would be determining where to spawn it. I wouldn't want to have to go after the Wormhole Disruption Device and find out that the wormhole it unblocks is completely opposite side of the galaxy.

Just make it spawn only within X hops of the wormhole.

I mentioned this in the other thread...why not make CSGs block the a Nebula Wormhole on their own planet?  I see a few benefits:
1.  You may be forcing the player out of his/her 'early game comfort zone' but not punishing him for wanting a stronger champion (clearing CSGs is a normal part of preparing for the Homeworld strike anyways).
2.  Players who don't like CSGs can still disable them (Champion DoTA, anyone?).

Some of this would be dependent on the RNG and galaxy seed, but it shouldn't be a GG situation in any case.  Just another decision for the player (strike with a weaker champion now at lower AIP or take a CSG-D world earlier than planned, for example).  Thoughts?