Semi-Poll: Increased AIP for indestructible capturables?

[chemical_art]

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

I'd rate just as hard as trying to win a 8.3 where I didn't care about holding it.

[keith.lamothe]

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

I'd rate just as hard as trying to win a 8.3 where I didn't care about holding it.

That doesn't sound very hard

[chemical_art]

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

I'd rate just as hard as trying to win a 8.3 where I didn't care about holding it.

That doesn't sound very hard

Well, for me 

But on my level, playing a game where I tried to hold those 4 on say...8.3? That would be about as hard as 8.75.

I was going more for that fact that the work of trying to hold them is greater then the work if I just ignored them

[keith.lamothe]

I was going more for that fact that the work of trying to hold them is greater then the work if I just ignored them

I see, so basically you don't need the benefit of the structures to win, and the cost of taking them outweighs it anyway.  So any scenario where you actually needed their benefit to be able to win, you would lose. In your experience/perception, at least.

[chemical_art]

I see, so basically you don't need the benefit of the structures to win, and the cost of taking them outweighs it anyway.  So any scenario where you actually needed their benefit to be able to win, you would lose. In your experience/perception, at least.

Yes.

To keep the structure safe from all threats comes with a hefty AIP cost. Both directly in trying to make it "core", and indirectly in paying more K to keep defenses there. The AIP "cost" doesn't equal the benefits once it is lost, and since I inevitably lose it, it isn't worth trying to make the effort to keep it for even medium term.

This is the current setup. With the changes, the thought of paying the AIP to get the short term benefit again works if the benefit is used to end the game. Of course, if the AIP cost is still too high, again it isn't used.

Keep in mind that for AI HW kill shots, you probably have to rebuild it twice, since after the initial blitz to neuter the first AI HW you have to recover, and that leaves yourself vulunerable so there is a good chance you lose it, so have to rebuild it again.

[Hearteater]

I was going more for that fact that the work of trying to hold them is greater then the work if I just ignored them

I see, so basically you don't need the benefit of the structures to win, and the cost of taking them outweighs it anyway.  So any scenario where you actually needed their benefit to be able to win, you would lose. In your experience/perception, at least.

You have to take them because of CSGs, although maybe Chemical_Art is one of the people who players without CSGs.  That is the only reason I ever take AF or Fabs.  Actually, sometimes I don't even bother producing anything from Fabs, especially late game.  An early game Fab can help tide me over until I get enough K or ARS to get a slightly bigger fleet.

[keith.lamothe]

That is the only reason I ever take AF or Fabs.  Actually, sometimes I don't even bother producing anything from Fabs, especially late game.  An early game Fab can help tide me over until I get enough K or ARS to get a slightly bigger fleet.

This doesn't strike me as an indication that the structures are contributing to the fun of the game.  At least, for you.  Or chemical_art.  Or a number of the others.

I'm not sure that the rebuildable-with-AIP thing would fix that, either way.

[orzelek]

I understand correctly that we are talking about AIP per each rebuild?

That could be interesting... but some time ago.. in land far away... golems had AIP cost. And they were nice to look at then
I see this being used as capture, build what you can and if/when you lose it keep it destroyed until final HW assault.

[TechSY730]

That is the only reason I ever take AF or Fabs.  Actually, sometimes I don't even bother producing anything from Fabs, especially late game.  An early game Fab can help tide me over until I get enough K or ARS to get a slightly bigger fleet.

This doesn't strike me as an indication that the structures are contributing to the fun of the game.  At least, for you.  Or chemical_art.  Or a number of the others.

I'm not sure that the rebuildable-with-AIP thing would fix that, either way.

Yes, unless they were seeded in a convenient to defend location anyways, it is almost never worth taking and holding these things, even with no exo sources.

I would agree that something is more fundamentally "going wrong" with the "pace"/"flow"/"demands in each game stage" of the game...
Not sure what though...

[keith.lamothe]

That could be interesting... but some time ago.. in land far away... golems had AIP cost. And they were nice to look at then

You do have a point there

And the approach that finally worked for golems doesn't sound particularly good here.  Losing an AdvFact to an exo, and then getting an exo for rebuilding it might be amusing to me and some players, but...

[Hearteater]

To me, part of the issue is logistics.  Getting all my ships together from multiple sources is a pain.  Sure, the Warp Gates help, but that paralysis is pretty annoying (hey, that reminds me).  Even then, as we get into late game, my force grows so large (triangle+bonus+4 ARS types) that I just have more to juggle than is worth it.  Do I really want to mess around with Translocators too?  Is it even worth my time?  Eventually it becomes downright tedious to refleet and since I can win the game without all those extra, I might as well not build them.

Maybe AF/ASC/Fabs should be moveable (cannot fit in a Transport) so I can escort them (slowly) back to my space.  Then make Crystal Mines represent systems that can each support one such captured AI builder.  You can make Crystal Mines pretty common, around 50-60% of systems.  Or heck, make them in every system, but destroyable by the AI.  You could even make normal Space Docks require them.  That would make Enclaves more interesting, and make army deployment more meaningful.

[keith.lamothe]

I'm curious whether it would be an improvement (compared to the present state, none of this AIP to rebuild stuff) to:

1) make sure all advFact/ASC/fab's seed near the inner grav ring, on a point that maximizes the distance to the nearest wormhole.
2) Have all those, upon being captured, spawn a completely non-repairable (but possibly very slowly self-regenning) stationary "ancient forcefield" that's fairly wide-range, does not reduce outgoing damage, and has a fairly absurd amount of hp (possibly armor too).

You'd still have to deal with Raid Starships, but it could give you a bit of flexibility in dealing with sieges, and some sniper turrets under the ff could mess up raids pretty good.


Though in practice you'd probably just lose them to any major attack anyway, unless I made them really ludicrously durable.

[keith.lamothe]

To me, part of the issue is logistics.  Getting all my ships together from multiple sources is a pain.  Sure, the Warp Gates help, but that paralysis is pretty annoying

What would be the downside of reducing that paralysis to, say, 5 seconds?  Maybe 10 seconds for the in-enemy-territory version.  Or would the in-enemy-territory version need to stay high?

Would removing the paralysis entirely really hurt all that much?

Or maybe just the mkIV/mkV stuff could get the lower paralysis on warp.

[TechSY730]

To me, part of the issue is logistics.  Getting all my ships together from multiple sources is a pain.  Sure, the Warp Gates help, but that paralysis is pretty annoying

What would be the downside of reducing that paralysis to, say, 5 seconds?  Maybe 10 seconds for the in-enemy-territory version.  Or would the in-enemy-territory version need to stay high?

Would removing the paralysis entirely really hurt all that much?

Or maybe just the mkIV/mkV stuff could get the lower paralysis on warp.

Sort of off topic, but can those Mk. V younglings get that immunity to warpgate paralysis (if that warpgate is on friendly territory), and regain the self-damage thing (the lack of which is currently causing more issues than it is helping)? (If that would be hard to code, how about all Mk. V ships get this? Again, on friendly territory warp gates only)
See the above linked mantis, and the report of Mk. Vs popping into neinzul regen chambers and never popping back out automatically due to no self-damage leading to no self-healing in a chamber.

Anyways, shrinking the paraylsis time on friendly territory would really nice. Shrinking it some, but still prohibitively high on non-friendly territory, seems reasonable as well. (5s on friendly, 30s otherwise?)

[Kahuna]

This entire aspect of strategy would vanish if I could rebuild it for a little AIP. Before, i needed to be 95% sure it holds against anything. Now i would be quite fine with 60%. After all, all i lose is some time rebuilding it and just ten AIP. Thats absolutely nothing compared to the previous loss of a huge chunk of my fleet power.

As if you couldn't just load the latest autosave and do things differently lulz.