Semi-Poll: Increased AIP for indestructible capturables?

[chemical_art]

Ok, I'll update the AI to no longer assume inebriation in such cases

Well, it really just needs to take the next step of noticing spelling.

If content is spelled right, but otherwise wrong, its human ethanol use 

[Hearteater]

Why do I not care about Starship M+C costs, but I do about Mark V and even Mark IV fleet ships?  Durability.  Even before the latest buff, I could micro my SSs to keep them alive, so I rarely had to replace them.  If you are using fleet ships, they are going to die a lot (and if they don't, you didn't need them anyway).  So I know that fleet ship resource cost is always going to be a drain.  Starships I can work with.

I would love a cost reduction in them, and it probably would encourage their use more.  But don't lower their energy cost at the same time.  I think that needs to stay at its current levels.  Possibly go up a little.

[keith.lamothe]

Why do I not care about Starship M+C costs, but I do about Mark V and even Mark IV fleet ships?  Durability.

Ah, good point.

[LaughingThesaurus]

I tend to play so slowly that I'm just capped on resources forevermore, so I never really notice the M/C costs as much as I notice energy (at few planets) and knowledge costs. I mean, the knowledge cost doesn't keep me away from mark IVs as a whole because I always like big guns. You can ask Lord Sloth for proof. But, what it does do as has been repeated countless times is it applies all of the restrictions of going up in mark while adding another restriction of 'structure that needs defensing and can be perma-lost'.

[TechSY730]

You want to make the new forum post, or should I?

You are certainly the better organized one.

Alright, new thread on this topic is up.

http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,12787.new.html#new

[contingencyplan]

Good grief, 5.5 pages of replies since I've been here. I think I'll somewhat channel chemical_art and multipost a few replies to people, rather than try to cram everything into a single post, if that's alright.

<forum errors>

These are the errors I've noticed recently, somewhat in order of importance:

• Clicking the "Toggle View" button glasses the entire post draft, with no means of recovery.
  
  • This is a MAJOR PITA, because there's a few bugs in the semi-WYSIWYG view (auto-resizing of text, extra newlines) that I could work around by switching to "pure text with tags" mode. Lost a fair bit of work on one post when discovered, though like I said, it could be an anti-contingencyplan-megapost "feature."
  • If you only have time to fix one error, fix this one!
• If new replies appear while drafting a post, the new replies are not visible at all; there's a blank space for them and nothing more. Possibly related: the warning message about the new replies is blank (need to see it happen again for more information).
• Insert quote from the replies list under the draft area does nothing.

As a question, has anybody else noticed these?

I've had a smidge of experience with SMF in the past; seemed to be a reasonably good piece of forums software. I know y'all didn't write the software; these are just errors that manifested recently, so I figured y'all had done something to upgrade the system and didn't realize that things were broken. If it helps, I'm on Sabayon Linux, and the errors occur in both Firefox and Chromium (though I haven't tested extensively, or on other platforms).

[Vyndicu]

The other issues is that we are talking about "two" "different" structures.

By that I mean that Fabs with super-weapons enabled are a lot less desirable then Fabs with no super-weapons enabled, but the costs to get a fab stay the same.

So the benefits never change, but as you enable other stuff their (relative) desirability decreases because the drawbacks do nothing but increase.

And then in this thread we have people talking about how they view fabs through the lens of the options they play with, which is different for everyone posting. (In general)

D.

I was not talking to you directly but ok.

I do sometime play a different style game from time to time. I like to mess around with 1/1 with all minor faction on intensity 10 for instance.

I do not really agree on the for fab/adv. fab decreasing desirable because of superweapon. Let me put it another way let assume in a hypothetical patch fab/adv. fab/ASC are invincible (I know very unlikely) then defending them don't matter much right? Then in that game let say for some reason I decide to assault both homeworld with a mk2 bonus/triangle fleetship + mk2 starship everything plus 7 golem. Lot of firepower right? So if I had 3 or 4 more cap of MK5 either MK4, irregardless of their M/E cost, then my odd of success goes up right? I would think so for most cases.

You may be right on spot for contributing less overall firepower with superweapon on. But I still think having more total firepower is still better than ignoring the fab/adv. fab/ASC. There are some exception to that situation although. Which is why it is puzzling to me that people would say NO I will not pay more AIP in the revamp fab/adv. fab/ASC if they do get changed. You already pay a 20 AIP or more in some cases to use them in the current version.

To each his or her own playstyle I guess.

[contingencyplan]

I realize that the discussion has largely moved on from making capturables invulnerable to the viability of capturables in the base game, which I'm ill-equipped to contribute to (started 20 games, won 2, and I usually play with all exos on).

However, my approach is more from the mindset of "the fewer clicks the better" (which Aeson apparently said before me; I'll claim "great minds think alike"?).

From that standpoint, I do think this is worth considering beyond the M+C cost of the units:

Why do I not care about Starship M+C costs, but I do about Mark V and even Mark IV fleet ships?  Durability.  [...] If you are using fleet ships, they are going to die a lot (and if they don't, you didn't need them anyway).

I think this is a large part of my thought process on the matter: if I cannot rely upon the ability to rebuild units I've "won," from any resource, then they are no longer durable in the least.

I already have to bear in mind the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various units to use them effectively, which requires a lot of mental and physical work (at a minimum checking / remembering the resulting N x N matrix at all times). I then have to choose what additional units I bring into the game, based on the strengths and weaknesses above. Those choices should have a direct impact on my success, in and of themselves.

There exists simply too much data to effectively handle treating some fleet-level units (i.e., non-super-weapons) as durable and others as not. This means that if I'm playing the game "properly" (at the high level, and not necessarily "correctly" / "winningly"), then I should not have to pay special consideration to whether my units should be allowed to die. My strategic choices should have durability behind them, because the game is built upon durable decisions and costs. Otherwise, M+C+E+K costs don't matter, defenses don't matter, extra measures such as gate raiding or capturing buffer worlds don't matter.

At the end of the day, I have to accept that the ability to build those ships may ( => will) be lost.

Put another way, I'd extend Keith's question:

2) In a game with no superweapons, are AdvFact/ASC/Fab structures, assuming they're reasonably defensible, worth capturing?

Taken with the above, "reasonably defensible" requires enough defense to always prevent loss, which means that loss is unacceptable. Via correlation: should a capturable require the same level of defense as a homeworld? Not just can you provide that defense, but should you be required to? Then, how many capturables should you have to provide a homeworld-level defense for?

Anything less, and you are saying that the player cannot treat the resulting units as durable, and ain't nobody got time for that.

[Hearteater]

• Clicking the "Toggle View" button glasses the entire post draft, with no means of recovery.
  <snip>
  As a question, has anybody else noticed these?
  

What Toggle View button?

[keith.lamothe]

Taken with the above, "reasonably defensible" requires enough defense to always prevent loss, which means that loss is unacceptable. Via correlation: should a capturable require the same level of defense as a homeworld? Not just can you provide that defense, but should you be required to? Then, how many capturables should you have to provide a homeworld-level defense for?

You wouldn't need a homeworld-level defense unless the capturable in question was utterly vital to your winning the game.  More likely you can just go take the other AdvFact or ASC, or unlock the Enclave IV.  Or take another fab.  And that's assuming you still need whatever benefit you were getting; it's possible you've moved into a winning position by the time the capturable is destroyed.  Particularly if you use a Warp Jammer they're not being seriously-threatened 24/7.

[Diazo]

I'm actually going to go sideways here and ask a couple questions.

1) Destroying capturables is one of the few ways the AI has of hurting you without winning the game. Do we want to remove that from the AIs toolbox?

2) Are fabs be worth it if they don't survive until the end of the game?

3) Are fabs worth it if they do survive until the end of the game?

[orzelek]

One answer for all three points from me:
I don't care atm because I see no use for fabs.
Especially in game with any exo sources - I haven't played game without them from quite long. Getting temporary benefit in terms of additional forces doesn't seem worth it. And until they can be permanently destroyed I'm considering them a novelty thats seeded to look nicely and thats it.


Advanced Fabs IV and new Starships fabs IV look a bit better but on other hand they have prerequisite costs in K and same drawback as fabs.

I'm already defending in more than one point usually so I really have no forces to try and defend outliers. Sadly any serious attempts to make more planets viable for defense are failing currently. Adding even more because of fabricator or IV fabs... not worth the risk and additional time.

[contingencyplan]

• Clicking the "Toggle View" button glasses the entire post draft, with no means of recovery.
  <snip>
  As a question, has anybody else noticed these?
  

What Toggle View button?

It's the "mouse arrow" icon on the row above the smileys, furtherest to the right --- toggles between the WYSIWYG and "show me ALL THE TAGS!" views. Used to, the text would be transformed intact, tags and all. Now, on my end at least, all of the text in your draft disappears. Slightly annoying.

Though your screenshot prompted me to look for an option to disable WYSIWYG mode, which has simplified matters, so thanks! [/list]

[contingencyplan]

Taken with the above, "reasonably defensible" requires enough defense to always prevent loss, which means that loss is unacceptable. Via correlation: should a capturable require the same level of defense as a homeworld? Not just can you provide that defense, but should you be required to? Then, how many capturables should you have to provide a homeworld-level defense for?

You wouldn't need a homeworld-level defense unless the capturable in question was utterly vital to your winning the game.  More likely you can just go take the other AdvFact or ASC, or unlock the Enclave IV.  Or take another fab.  And that's assuming you still need whatever benefit you were getting; it's possible you've moved into a winning position by the time the capturable is destroyed.  Particularly if you use a Warp Jammer they're not being seriously-threatened 24/7.

To be clear, I'm not saying that capturables are on the same level of absolute strategic importance as homeworlds. The approach that I've seen is that "unnecessary to win the game" => "acceptable loss."

My point is that if the resource can be destroyed, then after taking the resource you have two options: you either accept that you could lose it ---

which strategically means you must plan as if you will lose it

---, or you defend it as if you cannot lose it, and the only thing that the game enforces that tactic upon is the homeworld.

The first option greatly increases the micro required to manage the obtained units. Given that one of the implicit goals of this game is to minimize micro --- which is where I'm primarily approaching this from, to be clear ---, this leads me to conclude that the latter is the desired mechanic.

I certainly reserve the right to be wrong, though.

[contingencyplan]

I'm actually going to go sideways here and ask a couple questions.

1) Destroying capturables is one of the few ways the AI has of hurting you without winning the game. Do we want to remove that from the AIs toolbox?

I think what you're trying to ask is whether the AI should be able to wound without killing.

Do I think that the AI should be able to permanently destroy anything I've paid good AIP currency for (plus micro and defenses and etc. etc.)? No.

Do I think that the AI should be able to wound? Yes.


To be clear, I'm not arguing that the player needs a buff. I'm arguing that the mechanics should be shaken up a bit, hence the original poll.

However, that mechanic was too heavy-handed. So...


As an alternative

What if holding a capturable had a mild but continuing impact on the non-AIP responses by the AI?

Let's take Fabs for starters. Every few minutes, the AI receives one of the Fab ships (Mk determined by AI level) as threat, as long as the Fab is under player control.

This would add a significant amount of decision to the Fabs: not just can I use them, but can I handle what I just unlocked?

The Fabs could then leave remains, which would still be considered by the AI as "under player control," encouraging the retaking of the planet so the balance is preserved.

Finally, this should not significantly affect players who want to build their cap and ignore it afterwards --- just self-destruct it, kill a handful of ships, and you're on your way, no further penalty.


The same could be done for FacIVs and ASCs, just a touch higher and based on the ships the AI has unlocked. This would also encourage a decision between available Fabs / ASCs beyond just taking the first one available with the expectation of grabbing another later if things don't work out.

With the revised threat mechanics, I could see this putting some pressure on the player. It's trading a lesser wound --- increasing threat while you don't maintain control --- for a bigger knife of the ability to overwhelm and kill you if you aren't careful.


Edit: This is the same sort of counter that the AI gets for the player having Champions.