So, this whole crystal thing (wait I think I used that title already...)

[Faulty Logic]

Can we add a hacking mechanic that makes MKIV Enclaves useful?

Like this?

Splitting mkIV enclaves into two techs, with mkIV having conditional availability of mkIV fleetships, and mkV acting like the current mkIV. The new mkIV would only cost 2000 k.

[Mánagarmr]

I approve. That's all I'm saying because everyone has already said everything else. ^_^

[LaughingThesaurus]

I kind of like the AIP scale, because "100%" doesn't really tell me much. I mean, if it's a roughly 100% chance of death, then fair enough. If it's more like "This is literally the best the AI's got" yet it's still beatable, then you could just hack forever and ever. I can't really look at 100% and decipher what it means straight away. It also implies a maximum amount of the AI getting mad at you. This doesn't actually exist for AIP or anything so it's a bit odd to see that as a hacking response scale.
That said, I don't really mind it if the AI's willing to go to like 230% (if you did push it so hard). I'm still partial to the AIP sort of scale. It's more familiar.

[Toranth]

Can we add a hacking mechanic that makes MKIV Enclaves useful?

Like this?

Splitting mkIV enclaves into two techs, with mkIV having conditional availability of mkIV fleetships, and mkV acting like the current mkIV. The new mkIV would only cost 2000 k.

If there's going to be a new "Mk IV/Mk V" tab on the contructors, you could make the new Mk IV Enclave only have the I-III and drone tabs (So could build all 4 drone marks), but the new Mk V Enclave would have the "Mk IV/Mk V" tab as well.

Of course, if it is going to be more common to have safe control of a Mk IV production facility, would there still be support for splitting the Knowledge unlocks of Mk III and Mk IV into seperate purchases?

[Cinth]

 I guess I am the lone dissenter among the group.  It's an interesting mechanic, but I just don't see it as a core mechanic.  Even with this change, you can go start to finish without needing to hack anything.  I put this in the vein as the "military builder" idea Keith gave us earlier.

[chemical_art]

I guess I am the lone dissenter among the group.  It's an interesting mechanic, but I just don't see it as a core mechanic.  Even with this change, you can go start to finish without needing to hack anything.  I put this in the vein as the "military builder" idea Keith gave us earlier.

As a counter point, in the early days of AI Wars, you COULD win without needing K. Doesn't mean K is bad 

[Cinth]

I guess I am the lone dissenter among the group.  It's an interesting mechanic, but I just don't see it as a core mechanic.  Even with this change, you can go start to finish without needing to hack anything.  I put this in the vein as the "military builder" idea Keith gave us earlier.

As a counter pint, in the early days of AI Wars, you COULD could without needing K. Doesn't mean K is bad 

I've never played a game of AIW that I haven't spent as much K as I could.

[chemical_art]

I guess I am the lone dissenter among the group.  It's an interesting mechanic, but I just don't see it as a core mechanic.  Even with this change, you can go start to finish without needing to hack anything.  I put this in the vein as the "military builder" idea Keith gave us earlier.

As a counter pint, in the early days of AI Wars, you COULD could without needing K. Doesn't mean K is bad 

I've never played a game of AIW that I haven't spent as much K as I could.

That is true. And why would you? You have already paid for it via AIP, why not take advantage of it?

[Cinth]

That is true. And why would you? You have already paid for it via AIP, why not take advantage of it?

That's kinda the point.  K is a core mechanic.  It isn't something are going to ignore.  Hacking on the other hand...

[TIE Viper]

It seems to me that changing hacking for the above mentioned ideas would put it at kind of a middle ground for being a core mechanic or an optional play style like hacking is now.  Knowledge unlocks have a continual cross game/map effect, where as hacking, aside from picking your ARS unlock would then have specific, more localized effects.  You can play a game start to finish without doing any gate raiding and make arguments as to whether that is a core mechanic you are expected to do or that it is not and its just another of the myriad of style choices.  Does it really matter what we call it?  All these ideas about expanding hacking sound awesome!

[LaughingThesaurus]

The whole point, Cinth, is that we actually don't want something that is a mandatory departure. The idea is that crystal is getting removed and replaced with something that actually provides gameplay depth. Just throwing a core mechanic in is going to be nigh on impossible, but the hacking thing can be made substantial enough that it won't just intrude on the game as it is while providing something that actually adds substance to those that want it (as a replacement for the missing slot of crystal).

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, adding something huge to the always-on part of the game that you _have_ to do... well, likely to be very controversial at best.  And honestly, that makes sense.

[Cinth]

The whole point, Cinth, is that we actually don't want something that is a mandatory departure. The idea is that crystal is getting removed and replaced with something that actually provides gameplay depth. Just throwing a core mechanic in is going to be nigh on impossible, but the hacking thing can be made substantial enough that it won't just intrude on the game as it is while providing something that actually adds substance to those that want it (as a replacement for the missing slot of crystal).

That's just it.  It doesn't add anything useful to my game.  It isn't universal. I want to be able to get as much out of it as the next guy.  And in as much I compared this idea to the military builder idea.  That had stronger implications for everyone that plays, not just a portion (no matter the size of that portion).

We can agree to disagree.  I just don't think hacking is that strong of a mechanic.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Most of the more universal ideas actually didn't get much favor though.

[Winge]

Intriguing.  I like the overall idea.

I can see a few hacks being more useful than many have given credit for.  The "supply hacking" could not only buy you an additional 4 worlds of deepstrike avoidance, but you can also use transports without attrition for up to three of those worlds (assuming there is nothing that blocks supply).  That's a lot of planets to bypass without threat (especially beneficial next to a core world, since you wouldn't have to capture anything for the transport range).  The updated hackers sounds like an improvement over the current split in hacking units as well.  And I really like knowing just how much a hack will affect the response...it's kind of hard to tell with the current implementation.

@Cinth
I'm a bit surprised when you say that hacking doesn't add anything to your game.  Out of curiosity, what game type do you play:  AIP, superweapons, FS, etc?  I would think that if K was that essential to you--and understandably so--you would K hack planets for an additional AIP-free K bonus.  Of course, if you level the whole galaxy with FS before finishing the AI, I would understand not K-hacking what you will capture anyways .