Semi-Poll: Increased AIP for indestructible capturables?

[chemical_art]

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.

I echo a lot of things.

If you have the mentality that "It's ok if I lose this capturable, I can still win" then you don't need it to begin with.

If you are in a game where you can successfully lock down a capturable, you probably don't need it to knock out the AI. If you are in a game where you need it to knock out the AI HW, you probably cannot lock down the capturable.

[RCIX]

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.

Fabs are already not something the player really needs anyway. How does punishing players more for taking one solve this? I like the idea itself, but fabricators would need hella buffs for that to be reasonable.

Oooon that note, what if you could move them?

[contingencyplan]

Fabs are already not something the player really needs anyway. How does punishing players more for taking one solve this? I like the idea itself, but fabricators would need hella buffs for that to be reasonable.

Oooon that note, what if you could move them?

I think that's part of the problem --- judging by some of the responses here, a tutorial on AIW would include "don't take a planet just for Fabs and don't put down a 'last stand' over them." FacIVs and ASCs would be more important, obviously, but depending on the options enabled, the lot are more noise than signal as far as "things worth taking a planet for."

The "punishment" is to balance making the structures rebuildable, which I'd put in the "hella buff" category. You paid in AIP by taking the planet, but as long as you hold them (hence the ability to self-destruct) the AI gets a slight boost as well. This is similar to some of the discussion in this thread; some of the ideas posted there also talk about giving the AI more flexibility in responding to the player than just straight AIP.

Moving the structures could work, but I think it's already covered by the unlock + build in a special structure idea earlier in the thread. I'd favor the added threat, as it supports players who want  to build the cap and be done.


To those in the latter category, would this impose too much of a penalty on you, assuming proper numerical tweaks?


@Keith, does this idea fall outside the "the player controls the tempo" point you made elsewhere? I'd at least like to know if the proposal's a non-starter.

If it's a "starter" (to avoid the double-negative), would making it an option (similar to the "Lazy AI," though separate) be possible down the line, at least in principle?

[keith.lamothe]

@Keith, does this idea fall outside the "the player controls the tempo" point you made elsewhere? I'd at least like to know if the proposal's a non-starter.

You mean the idea where controlling an AdvFact or Fab or whatever gives the AI a small bonus to overall wave-size and so on?  No, that wouldn't mess with that rule because the player would still be controlling whether or not (and when) they take those structures.

I don't know if it would be very popular, though, as it has a bit of an "I'm on a treadmill" feel where immediately upon obtaining an advantage (mkIV units, or mkV of something) the AI receives a countering advantage.

If it's a "starter" (to avoid the double-negative), would making it an option (similar to the "Lazy AI," though separate) be possible down the line, at least in principle?

We really try to avoid splitting core mechanics via options.  Not that we won't do it, of course, but we try to avoid it because if we just did it at the drop of a hat the lobby would go from "almost unmanageably complex" to simply "unmanageably complex"

And more importantly it would fracture the game balance unnecessarily: we already have a lot of challenges where one player (or group of players) gives us emphatic feedback that XYZ is OP (or UP) and another player (or group of players) gives us emphatic feedback in the opposite direction... sometimes it's perception or whatever, but sometimes it's just because group A was always playing with lobby setting N, and group B was always playing without it, or whatever.

We'll do that where we have to (the Lazy AI one being something where just making it always-on was going to take away even the option of playing certain long-popular ways), but it's not something to do if it can be avoided.

[contingencyplan]

If it's a "starter" (to avoid the double-negative), would making it an option (similar to the "Lazy AI," though separate) be possible down the line, at least in principle?

... t would fracture the game balance unnecessarily....

Given that my goal is simplicity, well-played sir. Seriously, though, that makes total sense.

@Keith, does this idea fall outside the "the player controls the tempo" point you made elsewhere? I'd at least like to know if the proposal's a non-starter.

You mean the idea where controlling an AdvFact or Fab or whatever gives the AI a small bonus to overall wave-size and so on?  No, that wouldn't mess with that rule because the player would still be controlling whether or not (and when) they take those structures.

I don't know if it would be very popular, though, as it has a bit of an "I'm on a treadmill" feel where immediately upon obtaining an advantage (mkIV units, or mkV of something) the AI receives a countering advantage.

Well, I'd say that's what underlies the whole game, essentially --- the base mechanic is "mo' planets => mo' problems." And I do think this idea has some merit (not biased of course ), if the player had the ability to build a cap and then delete the structure before the AI's advantage particularly got in gear + the ability to get off the treadmill at any point.

I'd be interested in any further feedback, but I figure this thread's dead (especially since you're onto more fundamental windmills like armor). I'll probably propose the idea again later during more of a lull, but I think I have something to contribute on the other topics in the meantime, time and current cold permitting (mwahahaha *cough* *cough* *cough*).  >D