Semi-Poll: Increased AIP for indestructible capturables?

[keith.lamothe]

This entire aspect of strategy would vanish if I could rebuild it for a little AIP.

So 10 AIP doesn't matter (much) to you?  For reference, how common is it for you to feel that you're actually in danger of losing the game once you're in the mid/late-game phase?

How many AIP does it take to matter to you?

For the fabs, I went with a low number for the individual fab, but if you have 4 fabs you want to keep running and you lose each of them 4 times over the course of the rest of the game...

[TechSY730]

Keep in mind, if we do go for "manual rebuild only", we will need some way to give a manual rebuild order

[_K_]

So 10 AIP doesn't matter (much) to you?  For reference, how common is it for you to feel that you're actually in danger of losing the game once you're in the mid/late-game phase?

I get that feeling every exo-wave, especially when it coincides with a regular wave or a CPA. If not in danger of losing, i feel in very high danger of irreversibly losing adv fabs (i try my best to defend these, but they arent high priority), adv facs (second priority, first being home).
The part about evaluating how well you can defend each of those, and then seeing how it really works out is what's most fun.

How many AIP does it take to matter to you?

+5 on a fab would make me ignore the most useless or the least defensible ones. +10 would make me rebuild only the most valuable or defensible ones.

I would easily accept 20 AIP for adv fac. Thats just 1 planet, and i get 2+ full caps of MKIV ships. Remind me, how much a neinzul enclave MKIV cost in Knowledge?
At 30-40 AIP i would still rebuild it, but be VERY bitter about its loss. 50-60 and i'd only rebuild it in a large game where i have 5+ MKIII fleetships unlocked.

For the fabs, I went with a low number for the individual fab, but if you have 4 fabs you want to keep running and you lose each of them 4 times over the course of the rest of the game...

It is not very likely you will lose all 4 of them, moreso multiple times. You can expect 1-2 to be in the "not worth rebuilding, will die again" zone, and 1-2 more in the "Deep core" zone where they are extremely unlikely to die.


This suggestion is generally for the people who like easier games, and in those, such AIP values wouldnt matter all that much. I mean, we arent balancing this specific change around 9+ difficulties, right?

[chemical_art]

This suggestion is generally for the people who like easier games, and in those, such AIP values wouldnt matter all that much. I mean, we arent balancing this specific change around 9+ difficulties, right?

Keep in mind AIP equivilants:

20 AIP equals 3k knowledge, the resources of the planet, and the strategic position. Minimal.

So in essence if you pay 10 AIP to replace a factory, you are in essence paying 1.5k  knowledge to rebuild it. Once. That is pretty steep.

For a single fab, at 4 AIP, you are paying 600 K, per rebuild.


It is not just a difficulty thing.

[Poko]

I really like the idea, but, like some others, my gut feeling is that the AIP cost is too low.  Thinking about some bounds

-The AIP cost to rebuild Factories and ASCs has to be less than 20 (if it's 20, then just take a new system with one, gain the K and a new factory)
-The AIP cost for something like 60-80 non-replaceable Mark IV zenith ships is 4, and 5 for Mark V.  A Fab produces a full cap of Mk V ships, and can keep rebuilding them, so is better than the zenith cache, and should have a higher cost to rebuild

If we use those as bounds, a Mk V fab should be > 5, and everything should be < 20.  Maybe 7 or 8 for a Fab and 10-12 for a Factory/ASC?  At what AIP cost would you rather just take a new factory vs rebuild an existing one?

Another idea might be a Factory Cloaker - it cloaks an offline factory/ASC/fab for some insane energy or metal/crystal cost, so that you could protect it if it's attacked, but at a large cost, and not 100% of the time.  If it cost 1000 metal / s + 1000 crystal / s and 200k energy to operate, no one would leave it on, but it would offer some special defense if the player deemed it necessary.

[chemical_art]

-The AIP cost for something like 60-80 non-replaceable Mark IV zenith ships is 4, and 5 for Mark V.  A Fab produces a full cap of Mk V ships, and can keep rebuilding them, so is better than the zenith cache, and should have a higher cost to rebuild

Not an accurate comparison. You can get those ships in the very early game, where they make more of an impact. You get them instantly for free (resource wise), compare this the resource cost of IV's and V's, which have a very steep cost. You can pop them after you have maxed the cap, they give you access to ships that you haven't paid the K cost for already (remember you have to pay for MK III's before you get IV's , let alone if you can get them at all. )

[TechSY730]

Weren't we talking about some ideas for penalties of loss that are NOT about boosting AIP? What about the "temporary AIP boost" idea that was going around?
(Then again, that is not what this thread is about, this thread seems to be about whether an AIP cost is acceptable)

[_K_]

-The AIP cost to rebuild Factories and ASCs has to be less than 20 (if it's 20, then just take a new system with one, gain the K and a new factory)

Yeah, because those things just grow in every system, right?

If you have taken a system with Fab and intend to hold it, you probably have it as a part of your territory, probably with nearby systems taken/neutered/gated to help defend it. Taking a new one means usually taking a highly isolated system you dont have any means to protect... unless you have warp jammers. Yeah and someone still dares to complain about jammers K price, heh.

[Poko]

Not an accurate comparison. You can get those ships in the very early game, where they make more of an impact. You get them instantly for free (resource wise), compare this the resource cost of IV's and V's, which have a very steep cost. You can pop them after you have maxed the cap, they give you access to ships that you haven't paid the K cost for already (remember you have to pay for MK III's before you get IV's , let alone if you can get them at all. )

That's true for the Factory - but for the Fabs, you don't need to unlock any of the I-III to get the V.  But you're right, it's comparing apples to oranges. 

[Hearteater]

I don't particularly like this change, but I don't have a major issue with it.  It just guarentees I have an AF/ASC going against a homeworld.  And I don't need that, even at 9/9.  But if the idea is implemented, I feel the AIP costs are too low.  Fabs for 5 AIP seems better.  An AF/ASC should probably be 15 or 20.  I can see the argument with "well, if its 20 I'll just take the other one" but honestly, the other one is generally not somewhere you want to go.  You already took the optimal AF/ASC, taking the other one often much harder.

[chemical_art]

If you have taken a system with Fab and intend to hold it, you probably have it as a part of your territory, probably with nearby systems taken/neutered/gated to help defend it.

...Except, that isn't always the case. If you are trying for ultra-low AIP, you leapfrog with the assumption most of those satellites are expendable...And many, many maps (at least on normal) you would have to expend upwards of 100AIP to provide even a one planet barrier, which won't help with exo-waves in the long run.

I bring this up only to say there are many, many playstyles.

[chemical_art]

  You already took the optimal AF/ASC, taking the other one often much harder.

Kinda related to the above, but I count on the fingers on my hand the number of AF/ASC that was truly optimal, rather then me having to work around it.

For me, if I have to revolve my strategy around something that once popped, means more AIP to bring up, it isn't optimally positioned.

[Poko]

-The AIP cost to rebuild Factories and ASCs has to be less than 20 (if it's 20, then just take a new system with one, gain the K and a new factory)

Yeah, because those things just grow in every system, right?

They kind of do - I usually play 80 planets (up at 9 diff this game, been working my way up from 7), and there are at least 5-6 of them in every game.  If I'm really lucky I'll get one in / near my core that I can defend, otherwise I'll just turn whatever world it's on into a fortress and hope an exo doesn't show up.  The few times I've lost one without losing the game at the same time I just took another one.  But if it's in my core and it gets hit by an exo, so does my home, and rebuilding isn't an option anyway. 

As chemical_art said, different people, different playstyles.

[_K_]

If you have taken Fab and intend to hold it

you leapfrog with the assumption most of those satellites are expendable

Here.

This change would probably affect the ultra-low AIP games the least, as in these games pretty much any additional AIP growth is unacceptable, and this whole thread is specifically about those things.

[keith.lamothe]

This suggestion is generally for the people who like easier games, and in those, such AIP values wouldnt matter all that much. I mean, we arent balancing this specific change around 9+ difficulties, right?

I'd say the main situation I'm thinking of here is a 7.6/7.6 game with golems-hard and spirecraft-hard (but not botnet or FS).

On those settings, how hard is it to hold, say, 4 satellite planets without any irreplaceables on them getting poofed?