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

[keith.lamothe]

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.

I figured the "cloak that fails 30 minutes after you lose the system" idea kinda covered that angle, but yea

[orzelek]

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

I'm fully aware of that.
Not everyone is even trying to do things like this. For someone that finished one 7/7 game with FS I see this from different point.
And when playing FS you don't really think about homeworlds. You think about surviving to get to a point when HW's will have no other choice but die - exos on way there can and will require everything you can muster to defend from.

[LaughingThesaurus]

If you're playing such a hard level that losing a perma-loss capturable would cost you the game, then it should cost you the game, it's as simple as that. On the highest levels of competitive RTS, if you lost two units more than you should have, that is a massive disadvantage and could well cost you the entire game. If all of your workers died, you're finished no matter what. 10/10 is supposed to be such that the "highest level grandmaster" would have problems, no? If the highest level grandmaster makes a tiny mistake, they fall to a tremendous disadvantage.
I for one like the perma-loss capturables because it does let the AI strike a meaningful and permanent blow... and that seems to honestly be what the AI needs to win even on higher difficulties if the players know what they're doing well enough. If the issue is the fact that it can't be defended well enough, then solve that problem another way. These kinds of capturables are something I'd like to see in larger supply. Make crystal harvesters movable, give them little exo-shields so they don't die quite so quickly, but if they do die it should hurt badly. Same goes for the factories and such.

[keith.lamothe]

Not everyone is even trying to do things like this. For someone that finished one 7/7 game with FS I see this from different point.
And when playing FS you don't really think about homeworlds. You think about surviving to get to a point when HW's will have no other choice but die - exos on way there can and will require everything you can muster to defend from.

For FS specifically I'd be fine with giving the city hubs and/or hab-centers ongoing crystal production.  I don't think defending a bunch of satellite capturables could really ever be possible in FS and I don't think it should need them.  That's much more of a "you've got a front line, and it holds or you'll probably die" scenario.

[Wingflier]

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.

I figured the "cloak that fails 30 minutes after you lose the system" idea kinda covered that angle, but yea

Not a big fan of the "Cloak", because that leaves them open to EMP Guardian nonsense which, from previous experience, is unbelievably GAY.

I'm in favor of option 1 and 4.

1) Movable resource nodes that can't go through wormholes.

4.) Self-destructing resource-nodes if you can't hold the planet.

I think self-destruction makes more sense than some kind of implosion bomb that appears out of nowhere.  You could say that without power the cooling systems because unstable and the crystals explode or something similar.  Though 30 minutes is a long time to recapture a planet, I still don't think it makes it very challenging.

[Winge]

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.

I figured the "cloak that fails 30 minutes after you lose the system" idea kinda covered that angle, but yea

Not a big fan of the "Cloak", because that leaves them open to EMP Guardian nonsense which, from previous experience, is unbelievably GAY.

Would making them EMP/Tachyon Immune as long as they are within the 30 minute "cloak window" work?  I forget if EMP automatically disables cloak, or that is just a side effect of the paralysis.  I agree with you, we don't want just a cloak--there are enough reasons to hate EMP guardians as-is 

[keith.lamothe]

Well, replace "Cloak" with "Temporary Invincibility", for the EMP thing.  Or I guess I could fix the bug that makes EMP counter permacloak

[Drjones013]

Just to throw in my two cents regarding the crystal long-term solution:

It seems like we should already have a solution in the form of asteroids. If crystal asteroids were available in certain systems and could be 'mined' by a specific ship type then the AI wouldn't be able to destroy the asteroids and the player would just be out a ship. Pre-mined caches could exist in the form of distribution nodes and the computer could even be 'competing' for crystal deposits, making clearing the AI crystal deposits strategically important. The 'crystal miner' would require a command center to deposit its cargo (whether it actually has to fly to the center or not) which also neatly forces the player to defend the system if practicable.

[Toranth]

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 one of those people.  Although, I wouldn't say 'useless', rather, I'd say 'temporary'.  I can take the system, produce a cap of whatever ship, then lose the Fab to the next Exo.  Sometime it'll survive a little longer, but it'll die soon enough.  What that means is that I won't ever go out of my way to capture a fabricator.  I need to take a CSG-B system, so at some point I capture a FacIV.  Probably won't ever use it, but I capture one.  I need to take the CSG-As and Cs, so I'll get a Fab or three out of the deal.  If they're useful, great.  If not, oh well, I had to take those systems anyway.  On the other hand, if I see a system with nothing but three fabs?  If it isn't already behind a chokepoint, it's a no go, because temporary ships aren't worth the hassle.
It's just a little depressing to see all these cool things, and know I'll never be able to keep them.

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.

I really like this idea in general, but I feel like it is missing a little something in terms of punishing the player for losing the Unique (unless the time gets too long, which is just boring).

Maybe a variant where instead of spawning working fabricators at mapgen, it spawns 'broken fabs', like broken golems?  Once repaired, for some significant cost, the human player can use them to produce units.  If the AI takes the system, destroying the human command station, the fabs can be 'destroyed' and returned to the 'broken fab' state.  The human player would need to recapture the system, then re-repair the Fabs before they could be used again.

For extra evil, add a Hybrid plot where the hybrids capture repaired Fabs and use them to produce escort fleet vessels.

Edit:  Having now read the other threads, this is basically the same as the already suggested and debatable "leave remains" option.  Although I like the idea of once-repaired Fabs being recaptured and used by the AI...

[contingencyplan]

REALLY annoying side note about the forums: clicking Toggle View deletes the entire post. Perhaps an effort to reduce my tendency to megapost?

(I clicked it because deleting blank lines between paragraphs causes the font size of the lower text to become the smallest possible, which is also annoying, but could be fixed in the past.)


As to the resources, I'm in favor of combining metal and crystal into a single resource --- since there's no real functional difference between them (Spirecraft that cost only crystal is the only one that comes to mind), and they're pretty much interchangeable after the latest patch (THANK YOU --- the manufacturies were EXTREMELY ANNOYING!), I don't see any benefit to keeping them separate.


As to irreplaceable crystal deposits...


edit: And I see that Keith already made pretty much the same suggestions here. This is what I get for posting without catching up on everything.

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?

Put me down for "no," if we take "mortally wound" to mean "you cannot win the game but you haven't gotten a game over screen yet." (I'm taking "lost" to mean "cannot win," since stalemates should be avoided in a game like this anyways.)

Especially for beginners, the win / loss conditions are simple and easy to understand / reason about: defend your Home CS and eliminate the AI CS. As soon as the Home CS is lost, the player is notified that they have lost the game and can then restart (scumsave or start a new game).

If the loss of another structure is essentially the same as losing the game, then it should likewise result in a game over screen in as short of an order as possible (I'd say within an hour, max). Otherwise, the player will continue playing a losing game for several hours (which I would wager even veteran players wouldn't do), and more importantly it hampers the player's ability to learn and create new strategies, as the length of time creates a lot of noise when trying to figure out exactly why they lost and what they need to do differently (aside from "just stick to winning, that's my motto!").

It also causes the pathological behaviors mentioned earlier:

• Restart on the loss of an irreplaceable, even if the game is still quite winnable --- if I can't tell what other structures will force a loss, then I have to conclude that every structure is equally and vitally important. Put another way, if I can't tell whether I just lost, then it's easier to assume that I have than to play for several hours to find out.
• • This is what I do with my Golems, especially the Botnet.
• Avoid capturing irreplaceables in the first place --- since there's not enough force fields to protect a FacIV from a HK on a mission, why bother?
  
  • This is what I tend to do, since I like playing with all 4 exo-producing options on.
  • I also strongly disagree that pumping out a group of MkIVs and setting them aside is a valid answer / strategy, if for no other reason than it creates a lot of needless micro, especially when trying to grab all units of a particular type (e.g., all bombers for an anti-fortress run). No answer to a situation should essentially boil down to "click more buttons."

Personally, I strongly dislike irreplaceable structures in any game, but I'm definitely in the "hoarder" category mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, I think that everything --- especially FacIVs and constructors  --- should be able to be replaced on loss (e.g., leave remains that can be rebuilt). However, that's not to say that losing them should be a trivial matter, just that if I'm supposed to protect these structures with my life, then losing them should actually cost me the game (or at least pose a SERIOUS threat that needs to be carefully handled to be survivable). Until then, even if I'm pushed back to just my homeworld, if I can hold them off, then I can / should be able to still win the game. "No one ever won a game by resigning."

One suggestion would be to make the loss of these structures send the AI into "panic mode" for a time. For instance, if they manage to kill a FacIV, then they get a HEFTY bonus to their threat fleet, under the idea that they have no idea how many MkIV units the player has, so they phone home for reinforcements. Or (inclusive) they could get a bonus to the next several waves. Or they get a 5-minute timer that uses an enhanced version of the deepstrike threat mechanic to increase the number of ships trying to kill you.


In essence, the AI has knocked you down, so they start throwing everything they can at finishing you off.

This would also have the possibility for a hilarious "resonance cascade" effect, if multiple such structures are destroyed an a row. >D

(You could even make this work for Golems --- if a Golem is destroyed, then the exo counter gets a significant boost, but the Golem can be rebuilt if you survive.)

I think this would work fairly well, given the updates to the threat mechanics recently. The only shortcoming that I see with this is that it further reinforces the "chokepoint" strategy, but I'm thinking about how to address that as well.

[TechSY730]

*large snip*

For what it is worth, I have won a game against difficulty 8 AIs with no capturable except for a cursed golem, which I could of easily won without.

I even only unlocked 1 Mk. III unit type.
Yep, I fought pretty much with just caps of Mk. II fleet ships, Mk. I starships, and a few Mk. II starships.
And this was before the 4th expansion core guard post nerf too.


So, thus, I can say that the capturables are NOT needed to win the game, though they may help you win faster (my game took a LONG time to finish)

[Hearteater]

However, that's not to say that losing them should be a trivial matter

Actually, that's exactly what your position results in.  We have unlimited resources and unlimited time.  Losing ground has no penalty.  You are actually proposing a worse penalty with AI panic than destructables have right now!  Currently, if I lose an AF, eh, I can't make Mark IVs.  So what.  They are helpful, but certainly not required to win even 9+ games.  But what you want is for the lose of an AF to have a chance for me to lose due to a spike of AI threat.  Why would I want to risk that?

I'm thinking a lot of people don't pay attention to how long they hold stuff like Fabs and AF.  I'll hold most of those 2-4ish hours.  My games last 10-15 hours.  That's roughly 13-40% of the game I'll have a given AF/Fab.  Most of the time I capture them late so I have them when I need them most: killing home worlds.  Really, it isn't like the AI spawns Exos right on top of the AF the moment you capture the system.  Capture the system right after you stop an Exo, drop a Fort and two Mini-Forts, and just that alone will often hold the system until the next Exo.  And the Exo may not even target the AF, in which case you've got another huge window to access it.

In the end, rebuilding destructables just removes consequences from the game.  I think that negatively impacts the game as a whole.

[keith.lamothe]

We have unlimited resources and unlimited time.

Well, resources are a function of time, so if you had infinite time then you would have infinite resources.

But you don't have infinite time, as the AI's CPAs have a "floor size" that raises over time.  Eventually it will put one together that's big enough to kill you.

Perhaps this buildup is sufficiently slow that you don't notice, however

[contingencyplan]

I edited the above post, but I'll note it here as well: Keith already made pretty much the same suggestions here. This is what I get for posting without catching up on everything.


Another forum bug: new posts that appear while you're writing a post aren't actually displayed at the bottom; the blank space for it is there, but it doesn't contain any names or text.

However, that's not to say that losing them should be a trivial matter

Actually, that's exactly what your position results in.  We have unlimited resources and unlimited time.  Losing ground has no penalty. 

I'm very inclined to agree that losing ground should result in a penalty (whether AIP or something else).

*large snip*

For what it is worth, I have won a game against difficulty 8 AIs with no capturable except for a cursed golem, which I could of easily won without.

I even only unlocked 1 Mk. III unit type.
Yep, I fought pretty much with just caps of Mk. II fleet ships, Mk. I starships, and a few Mk. II starships.
And this was before the 4th expansion core guard post nerf too.


So, thus, I can say that the capturables are NOT needed to win the game, though they may help you win faster (my game took a LONG time to finish)

You are actually proposing a worse penalty with AI panic than destructables have right now!  Currently, if I lose an AF, eh, I can't make Mark IVs.  So what.  They are helpful, but certainly not required to win even 9+ games.  But what you want is for the lose of an AF to have a chance for me to lose due to a spike of AI threat.  Why would I want to risk that?

To be clear, my post was more of a theory post regarding the "mortally wound" comment than an argument about whether FacIVs are necessary. I'll agree that it's a closely related point (i.e., it goes to "what constitutes a 'mortal wound'?").

I'd also say that they aren't required for y'all to win 8+ games; I couldn't win 8+ right now, period. Player ability has to be taken into account, as much as possible. However, I'd agree that it would be useful to discuss the game's "mating material."


Also, when discussing whether losing a FacIV could cause / imply a loss, we also have to take into account the cost of obtaining the FacIV and keeping it --- AIP and spread defenses. I'd wager that those costs can create situations where keeping the FacIV does mean the difference between winning and losing. If the current game cannot be won without a particular building, then having that building lost permanently (and therefore the player keeps playing a losing game) is indeed worse than having the player lose quickly due to a threat spike or other direct penalty.

Similarly, if they aren't necessary, then why spend the effort to take the planet in the first place (assuming I took the planet for the FacIV specifically)? At least for y'all, if I'm understanding correctly, FacIVs and Fabs are not particularly strategically interesting, because their loss is nothing consequential, which contributes to the "no [real] penalty for lost ground" point above.

As an aside, you said that my position results in the loss being a trivial matter, but my proposal is worse than the current situation? 

I'm thinking a lot of people don't pay attention to how long they hold stuff like Fabs and AF.  I'll hold most of those 2-4ish hours.  My games last 10-15 hours.  That's roughly 13-40% of the game I'll have a given AF/Fab.  Most of the time I capture them late so I have them when I need them most: killing home worlds.  Really, it isn't like the AI spawns Exos right on top of the AF the moment you capture the system.  Capture the system right after you stop an Exo, drop a Fort and two Mini-Forts, and just that alone will often hold the system until the next Exo.  And the Exo may not even target the AF, in which case you've got another huge window to access it.

I'll agree I usually don't pay attention to how long I hold things; as noted, I'm a hoarder, so once I capture something like that, I do my best to keep it (often restarting for it). However, as I noted above, effectively using this tactic (i.e., ensuring that you keep your MkIVs safe till you need them, even if it's for 10 minutes) requires significant micro (and is easy to screw up with a misclick), and I strongly disagree that "more micro" (or, "more clicking") = "more strategy." (Though maybe I'm just jealous of those who do more than 15 actions / min in games. )

In the end, rebuilding destructables just removes consequences from the game.  I think that negatively impacts the game as a whole.

I guess this is what I'm getting at. Yes, if FacIVs were simply changed to leave remains, then that would remove a consequence from the game. That event should come with consequences. What I'm against are permanent consequences, where I am permanently hampered (perhaps fatally so) but have not lost the game.

If I make a strategic error, then exploit it (i.e., do your best to kill me for it) --- that's more strategic in my view. Don't just hamstring me so I limp along to my demise (or to a win that takes longer to complete than I have on this earth ).

[Faulty Logic]

Irreplaceables should remain so. I could be okay with some kind of second chance (like: it drops remains once, or it has an hour of invincibility off human planets that doesn't recharge), but not anything further.

A lot of complaints here are because exos kill fabricators easily. But you have other ways to get firepower when exos are enabled. Essentially, it seems like people want the benefits from exo-sources without one of the major, established downsides: you will lose irreplaceables from time to time, unless you savescum mercilessly.

The game has an established, awesome and very strong means to break stalemates: warheads. They can take (almost) any stalemate to a fast-paced, win-or-lose affair.

If you have somehow dug yourself so deep that warheads cannot work, then it should be a fairly clear case for even a beginner to resign and start over.