Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.

[chemical_art]

It would still be a general nerf to the economy, because I am spending resources to secure a resource that before was replaceable. Which I didn't vote for. I voted to change manufactories, or more specifically automating the process more specifically. I feel the rug under me being thrown out. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one other person wouldn't have voted to alter manufacturoes if it was known the entire economy was being reworked so more irreplaceables were made.

EDIT: This really isn't even related to manufactories, this is a harvestor issue.

[Diazo]

Not a fan. I don't want yet another reason to make the almighty single chokepoint more necessary in high difficulty games. Whether desired or not, adding a critical structure reinforces this, period. 

I'm crossing threads here, but this is again my current biggest issue with the game at the moment. Single chokepoint should not be the only defense option in harder games. Changing that though is a major undertaking as so much of the game leans that way due to its nature that I'm not sure where to start.

On the manufactories, check Keith's first post, what he's actually talking about doing is just making the conversion happen in the background and removing the manufactories from the game.

All this other conversation about changing how resources work and so on is a long-term what if, along the lines of the armor/weapon attack bonuses re-work.

D.

[Hearteater]

There is a group of people who are against any form of destroyable asset in any system.  Apparently they wish for the lose of any system to be meaningless.  I disagree, and for example would welcome a +AIP penalty on any player's Command Station death.  I feel like we shouldn't be trading systems with the AI casually.  The unlimited resources already give us the ability to rebuild anything given time, and time isn't even that big a limiter because the AI doesn't have a lot of follow up.  So what if a CPA nearly wipes you out?  You've got hours until the next one.  Same for Exos.  About the only thing you can't afford to let wreck you is a wave, and the only time they will is if you AIP or difficulty gets excessively high (and for some people even 10/10 isn't enough to get waves through).

I really want the ground I take to be meaningful, and my loses to be equally meaningful.  Defending a system doesn't really get me anything much if I stop the attack one system further in.  I mean nearly everything I have leaves debris which auto-builds when I move back to the system, so it isn't even like it requires any of my personal time to recreate my defenses.  Stopping the attack in System A or B doesn't matter, and isn't even interesting homeworld aside.

So I'm going to assume people against destroyable assets aren't just really bad at defending, and instead are playing extreme difficulty games and/or really nasty maps that are hard to defend.  I believe the solution is to give us more methods to defend many systems.  Stealthed Repulsor turrets that push back like the Military CS but only work on large ships, mines that are improved as we improve our turrets and attack with those attacks (MLRS mines, Laser mines, etc), Wormhole Cloakers that hide nearby worm holes but aren't themselves cloaked and are priority targets for the AI even when they aren't actually hiding any worm hole, Blackhole Turrets that pull a set number of nearby enemy ship to them and then release them which allows you to chain several of them together to move a chunk of ships around, and other means of slowing/delaying/splitting/redirecting ships or even cheapy thinning their numbers.

Overall I believe that would yield a more interesting game.

[TechSY730]

About the chokepoint balance thing, I have made a new thread about it.

http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,12678.0.html

[Faulty Logic]

Making crystal rare and valuable: approved.
Crystal caches: approved.
Irreplaceable crystal sources: no.

But I'm also fine with the system as/is. There isn't anything inherently wrong about interchangeable resources, nor would the new system necessarily be better.

There is a group of people who are against any form of destroyable asset in any system.  Apparently they wish for the lose of any system to be meaningless.

Strawman. Are there really people who oppose the existence of fabricators, FactIVs, capturable AI defences, etc.?

I feel like we shouldn't be trading systems with the AI casually.

I really like this aspect. It makes for a dynamic game, and system losses are hardly completely meaningless. I usually have satellite empires, so losing any system is at least a minor headache, even ignoring irreplaceable stuff on it.

Single chokepoint should not be the only defense option in harder games.

It isn't. It's the best option, if the map allows it, but it isn't the only option, and I don't mind a chokepoint having significant benefits.

[keith.lamothe]

I wouldn't be surprised if at least one other person wouldn't have voted to alter manufacturoes if it was known the entire economy was being reworked so more irreplaceables were made.

As Diazo was pointing out, I wasn't taking the poll votes as in favor of the crystal rework.  I'm currently working on the automated conversion outlined in 1) in my original post of this thread.

My point from there is that it really just highlights how nearly-superfluous it is to have both metal and crystal.  The particular rework of crystal I went on to propose is certainly not the only way to deal with it, and I don't think the need to do something is massively critical, but I also don't think it's going to go away.  M+C (as opposed to just M or just C or whatever) is a weak mechanic.  The game will be better if we replace it with a strong mechanic (without also wrecking something else important, of course).

We have something of an ideological divide among us concerning whether the game should include situations where defense-anywhere-but-a-human-HW is ever critical to whether or not you can win the game.  I think we need to pursue that subject before adding any additional very-important capturables.

[keith.lamothe]

Are there really people who oppose the existence of fabricators, FactIVs, capturable AI defences, etc.?

Yes, in that there are people who claim they are useless because the AI simply kills them very quickly (during the next exo or whatever).

I'm not saying you're one of them

To say that there's an idealogical divide is not to say that there are only 2 groups, or that there are no gradations of significant variation between them.

Anyway, I think there's just at least 2 honestly-different ways of looking at how the AI should be allowed to threaten you:

Should it be able to mortally wound you without hitting your home system, or not?

[Faulty Logic]

Yes, in that there are people who claim they are useless because the AI simply kills them very quickly (during the next exo or whatever).

I am genuinely surprised.

First, if you have an exo source, you have other ways to increase your firepower. Second, losing a fabricator or FactIV does not affect your final fleet strength (just stuff your now-irreplaceable units in an unused corner, bring them out against the HWs), just your operational fleet strength (the fleet you use all the time).

[Wingflier]

What if instead of the new resource being some kind of stationary metal, we made the new resource some kind of capturable AI technology?  That way we could make them movable (kind of like ARS Ships), so you could put them all under a shield.  They still serve the same purpose, but it's cooler; and they're easier to defend so it makes more sense.  The only caveat is that they can't travel through wormholes.  That way, even on Gridlock maps they're realistically defendable.

[keith.lamothe]

Yes, in that there are people who claim they are useless because the AI simply kills them very quickly (during the next exo or whatever).

I am genuinely surprised.

First, if you have an exo source, you have other ways to increase your firepower. Second, losing a fabricator or FactIV does not affect your final fleet strength (just stuff your now-irreplaceable units in an unused corner, bring them out against the HWs), just your operational fleet strength (the fleet you use all the time).

Yes, I don't think that the position taken-to-that-extreme is rationally sustainable.  Just commenting that I have encountered it (from both high-difficulty and closer-to-diff-7 players).

[orzelek]

I would be in the group opposing to add new irreplaceable stuff. At least until there are semi-viable options of defending such things in exo-wave infested games.
As it stands now even huge choke point might not be enough - and it's very difficult to place one so that you can defend said irreplaceable.

It's a bit of circle now - to defend from exos Mk IV/V ships are on really useful side (aka they can live few seconds and do stuff) but they can't be reliably obtained when exos are around.
Making crystal that is required for most advanced units join that circle could easily cripple any FS game.

Faulty Logic:
You are going by the hoarder mentality - for some of us there is no "final" or "operational" fleet strength. If you are playing on difficulty thats able to challenge you - you need all your units to fight. This basically relegates irreplaceable units into the "don't bother trying" bag - cost of holding them is usually more than utility they can bring for that short time you have them.

[keith.lamothe]

What if instead of the new resource being some kind of stationary metal, we made the new resource some kind of capturable AI technology?  That way we could make them movable (kind of like ARS Ships), so you could put them all under a shield.  They still serve the same purpose, but it's cooler; and they're easier to defend so it makes more sense.  The only caveat is that they can't travel through wormholes.  That way, even on Gridlock maps they're realistically defendable.

That post looks suspiciously familiar

Anyway, yes, there are ways of making the "take and hold" thing "softer" in the case of particular capturables.  For instance, one or more of the following:

1) Make it mobile, but not-go-through-wormholes (otherwise it's not take-and-hold at all).

2) Give it cloaking that functions as long as the planet has a human command station (or, possibly, as long as the planet has supply).  Can have it retain cloaking for maybe 30 minutes after the planet is taken down to allow a buffer for quick-reclaim, but you still lose it if you really get hammered and can't even recolonize that long.

3) Have the unit be invincible, but it shuts down for an hour after a human command station dies on the same planet.  So it's not fully gone, but you lose use of it for a time long enough (pending tuning) that it hurts bad enough that you genuinely care about not losing the planet.  Or in the case of the crystal mines, not losing too many of those planets.  To some extent that's already there for energy reactors, though.

[keith.lamothe]

Faulty Logic:
(...)
If you are playing on difficulty thats able to challenge you

Not sure if you intended to imply otherwise, but believe me, he does

[Faulty Logic]

Faulty Logic:
You are going by the hoarder mentality - for some of us there is no "final" or "operational" fleet strength. If you are playing on difficulty thats able to challenge you - you need all your units to fight. This basically relegates irreplaceable units into the "don't bother trying" bag - cost of holding them is usually more than utility they can bring for that short time you have them.

I do need all the units I can get against the AI Homeworlds. But just taking a system, or defending against routine attacks? I don't need every unit I possess, even on the hardest difficulty. If I absolutely needed all my units all the time during routine operations, then the HWs would be nigh impossible.

[Hearteater]

4) The AI will attempt to build a Crystal Implosion Bomb on any Crystal site in a neutral system.  This take 1 hour (or whatever) and permanently destroys the Crystal resource if completed.  So you can lose the system, but you've got a limited time to take it back before it becomes permanent.