Semi-Poll: Increased AIP for indestructible capturables?

[keith.lamothe]

Circular logic much?

Shell game!  Look over here!

Yea, I was just looking for answers to the two things independently.

Thanks

[chemical_art]

With more thought, id actually consider the asc to be viable to defend and worth the effort in a base game. Since i sometimes get the iii anyway even if i dont go all out starship, if i go all out i could really benefit from the bonus.


...

I notice something now. for starships, iii k cost is ok without needing the iv... So in my mind the iv really is a bonus so worth unique tedium. for fleetships this is not so.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Mark III fleet ships are so expensive it's hard to justify the cost of more than one really to me. So, I'm in that camp too. It's like even after you have the factory it's still a liability to defend and you have to pay extra for the mark IVs anyway... so it hardly ends up even really being a bonus.

[Hearteater]

Yeah.  Every time I lose a Mark V from a Fab I cry a little inside.  Maybe that's why I don't use them as much...too much economic headache for low AIP.

[Winge]

The other side of the question is: do you ever want to take-and-hold them?  Why or why not?  Aside from being forced to by the CSG mechanic.

My answer is "Mark V Tackle Drone Launcher Fabricator."  Which roughly translates to, yes there are cases where I want a certain Fabricator.  It is very unusual for me to try and take a second fabricator planet, though (in a normal, low-AIP game).

[keith.lamothe]

Mark III fleet ships are so expensive it's hard to justify the cost of more than one really to me. So, I'm in that camp too. It's like even after you have the factory it's still a liability to defend and you have to pay extra for the mark IVs anyway... so it hardly ends up even really being a bonus.

Yeah.  Every time I lose a Mark V from a Fab I cry a little inside.  Maybe that's why I don't use them as much...too much economic headache for low AIP.

So the m+c costs are a deterrent too, is what you're both saying?  In general the higher-mark ones are balanced with "requires a lot of planets worth of econ" in mind.  And in general I agree with that, as I'm concerned that otherwise the econ game just gets too easy if you're not playing <100 AIP.  But the numbers could be off.

[chemical_art]

So the m+c costs are a deterrent too, is what you're both saying?  In general the higher-mark ones are balanced with "requires a lot of planets worth of econ" in mind.  And in general I agree with that, as I'm concerned that otherwise the econ game just gets too easy if you're not playing <100 AIP.  But the numbers could be off.

[Can you tell when I'm at home and when I'm on my phone?]

I think it is a combination of

A) Fleetship K costs being balanced around having a factory at very little extra cost (AIP, lucky positioning, etc)
B) Fleetship M + C costs overtaking their overall increased power, even with generous extra coefficient of "oomph" due to the advantages that higher mk's give.
C) The various other ways of increasing power, such as grabbing more ARS's, getting starships, econ upgrades, and the ol' reliable mercs for that "final push", seem more reliable

[keith.lamothe]

[Can you tell when I'm at home and when I'm on my phone?]

Yes: when you're more coherent than the character in your avatar, and when you're less.

I think it is a combination of

A) Fleetship K costs being balanced around having a factory at very little extra cost (AIP, lucky positioning, etc)
B) Fleetship M + C costs overtaking their overall increased power, even with generous extra coefficient of "oomph" due to the advantages that higher mk's give.
C) The various other ways of increasing power, such as grabbing more ARS's, getting starships, econ upgrades, and the ol' reliable mercs for that "final push", seem more reliable

Hmm, fair enough.

On the m+c thing it's kind of like how starships (or mercs, for that matter) cost relatively obscene amounts of m+c: the idea is that those are for when you're doing pretty well in m+c.

I'm a little surprised that you'd reach for starships and mercs for final-push assistance, but find the mkIII/IV fleetship m+c costs to be a deterrent.  Though that's probably not exactly what you meant.

[chemical_art]

I'm a little surprised that you'd reach for starships and mercs for final-push assistance, but find the mkIII/IV fleetship m+c costs to be a deterrent.  Though that's probably not exactly what you meant.

As for starships, they actually are really good, in part because AI core eyes are so bloody common. But it isn't so much for that final push rather then they are so useful and reliable at all stages. Also consider that you can get two mk III starships for the cost of one III fleetship K wise, it gets more tempting. Before you take this the wrong way, before the starship changes, I didn't get any mk III units aside from my bonus unit which is central to my strategy, and maybe bombers, but I didn't get III starships before the changes.

Mercs, though...if you have the time, they are no better pushes in vanilla. The key is their huge caps with high mark. Of course, with their super high costs and high caps, it takes netflix syndrome to downright depressing levels. But it works, if you can survive the CPA's (which eventually you can't, so it works)

[chemical_art]

On the m+c thing it's kind of like how starships (or mercs, for that matter) cost relatively obscene amounts of m+c: the idea is that those are for when you're doing pretty well in m+c.

That's fine. Just like having K costs for III's factoring in IV's being available is fine. Or that a unit producer being irreplacable can be fine.

Having all three though? They don't mesh.

It was like in the days were fleetships and starships being balanced around each other, but starships were overshadowed due to other factors.

IV's are balanced around as if they were just like I - III, except they come with extra baggage. Except with this case, some of the IV's extra costs are transferred to the III via K, so that feels nerfed too whenever the IV is not avialable. And when the IV is avialable, it isn't earth shattering, it just feels balanced as if that it is almost meant to be avialable, even though it is not.

[Histidine]

[Can you tell when I'm at home and when I'm on my phone?]

Yes: when you're more coherent than the character in your avatar, and when you're less.

It could be worse; it could be a Pinkie Pie avatar.

[keith.lamothe]

Also consider that you can get two mk III starships for the cost of one III fleetship K wise, it gets more tempting.

Well, one of the points of the recent changes was to make it so one mkIII fleetship cap is twice as strong as one mkIII starship cap, but in general I was nicer than that (from the starships' perspective) on the numbers.

Anyway, I'm trying to find a way to make the III/IV fleetships more attractive... but I'm also trying to avoid what amounts to a massive buff to the player.  I mean, I can do that, but then the AI get jealous and you don't want that (or maybe you do).

[Vyndicu]

I was looking at the poll in here. Then look at the general feeling toward fab/adv. fab/ASC. It seem that either people who don't think they are in need of a change or they are not worth to capture even with the 20 AIP baseline cost.

So I am trying to figure out why you people don't think it need a change? You think they are already powerful for what they offer? Sorry bit off topic.

[TechSY730]

About the core eyes, there may still be a seeding bug with them making them too common. There was a forum post about this during the AVWW2 caused hiatus...


Anyways, about the Mk. IV and Mk. V stuff, there is a strong diminishing returns going on here.

Both the power and the m+c costs of the ships go up linearly with mark. However, the m+c slope is higher than the power slope (2x for the m+c past mk. I, but 1x for the power). This starts feeling really bad cost-effeciency wise once you get up to Mk. IV.

Plus, the sheer fact that it is a linear increase means that you are getting diminishing returns with each mark step up anyways. (Or more technically, for any linear function f(x), lim(x -> infinity, f(x+1)/f(x)) = 1)

I think this diminishing returns of power over mark is fine, but m+c costs and knowledge costs should be balanced somewhat accordingly (slightly higher than "fair" is fine, to keep pressure on late game unlocks high. But right now, its a bit too high).

I think something closer to the knowledge cost progression from Mk. II to Mk. III of the starships may be good for the fleet ships (IMO, the fleet ship costs should remain bit higher though) (this will help the adv factories)

Also, maybe reduce the m+c "slope" over mark (1.5x maybe? So you still are getting "less" for your money each mark, but not quite so punishingly)
(this will help both the adv factories AND the mk. V fabricators)

And finally, AIP plays into this. I would vote for making the "base" AI strength stronger (aka, the AI puts up more of a fight at low AIPs), but doesn't grow quite at strong as fast as AIP goes up (both the linear of <=8 and the exponential of >8). This should hopefully encourage people to be more willing to take stuff (both because they won't be punished for it quite so hard and because if they stay with low planet strats they will now be further behind due to the base strength increase)
However, the topic of AIP is big enough for its own forum post.

[chemical_art]

Anyway, I'm trying to find a way to make the III/IV fleetships more attractive... but I'm also trying to avoid what amounts to a massive buff to the player.  I mean, I can do that, but then the AI get jealous and you don't want that (or maybe you do).

The lens keeps shifting.

It started with the capturables coming with extra cost to be indestructible.
When the idea of extra AIP came up (extra cost) to defend it is was contentious in how much it would cost.
Then we discuss how often they die.
Then issue was then why don't people put the effort to defend them when you can, and the response was it isn't worth the benefit compared to cost.
So now there is talk about increasing the benefit so it is worth the effort.


It all comes back to the core: What is the right balance between the cost and benefit to the factory. Should the cost decrease, or the benefit increase?