Wave Size and Timing based on Points of Ingress

[keith.lamothe]

Per-planet caps seems to me to have the undesirable side effect of reducing (the effect of) player choice and/or homogenizing everything, depending on the method used.  I think a better line of inquiry would be to add incentive for capturing more planets.  That, and there already exists a kludge in the engine to encourage expansionism - energy.

I think the OP's point is that holding multiple points (which you have to do, to make use of those planets you capture) isn't really possible on higher difficulties.  The defenses (i.e. turret cap and mobile cap) cannot be spared from the primary defense point.

It's probably more possible for other people using different settings or different strategies, but Diazo's experience has been pretty consistent on this point, iirc.

[dotjd]

I really don't think balancing the game around 10/10 is a good idea.  That's why I asked if this was considered a problem on normal difficulties.  I can't see how a solution that would be considered effective on 10/10 would be anything but gamebreaking on normal difficulties.

after all, if it were possible to beat 10/10 without being extremely judicious and risk-averse, you would consider it a bug report and up the difficulty, right? =p

[Diazo]

Per-planet caps seems to me to have the undesirable side effect of reducing (the effect of) player choice and/or homogenizing everything, depending on the method used.  I think a better line of inquiry would be to add incentive for capturing more planets.  That, and there already exists a kludge in the engine to encourage expansionism - energy.

I think the OP's point is that holding multiple points (which you have to do, to make use of those planets you capture) isn't really possible on higher difficulties.  The defenses (i.e. turret cap and mobile cap) cannot be spared from the primary defense point.

It's probably more possible for other people using different settings or different strategies, but Diazo's experience has been pretty consistent on this point, iirc.

My most recent game is a diff 9.0/9.0. I currently have 3 planets exposed to waves and I'm trying to keep my experiences talking from that. How well I'm keeping my 10/10 experiences out of this thread is debatable.

The other reason I seem to be an outlier in this is I don't play with minor factions on. No fallen spire, no golems and especially no human resistance fighters spawning to help out. It's just what I can build vs. what the AI is sending at me.

It is quite common I'll read an AAR and the player posts something along the lines of "my hive golem eats the wave" or "resistance fighters spawn to help me clean up", I don't have any of those toys enabled so I don't have the power they give me.

Lastly, I play lattice type maps exclusively, it's very rare to never that I can setup a single-ingress defense without gate raiding.

Question: is this a problem that you see in moderate-difficulty (let's go with 7-8) games, or just higher difficulty ones?

I think this issue exists on diff 7-8, but the ship counts in the waves are low enough that it is not a problem. I am on difficulty 9 and I'm only at 120 AIP. Average wave size slamming into my planets is in the 1,300 to 1,400 unit range. Add in another 5 shadow frigates if it is the Heroic AI sending the wave in question.

120AIP does sound high, but I am only exposing 3 systems of a 7 system empire and I have a bunch of AIP reduction in place. With that much Knowledge beyond the 3 systems I am exposing to the AI, I would not think it is out of line to expect the defences I can unlock to hold the line, but they don't even have a prayer without my most of my fleet in the system.

Ummm, unless we are talking about giving 10 minute wave warnings I'm not sure I follow. If my fleet is 3 systems out and a system on the far side of my empire from it gets a wave alert, my fleet have 5 systems to travel to respond. And any ships I leave behind get mulched so my fleet travels at the slowest ship's speed (I'm looking at you plasma siege) so it takes a long time to travel all the way back. And 3 systems out is not the farthest I regularly take my fleet.

My issue is that a multiple-ingress defence spreads your static defences out too much relative to how strong the AI stays. Making the AI waves bigger against a multiple ingress defence would be going in the wrong direction I think.

I want to make it so I don't have to have most of my mobile fleet tied to my empire as a response unit, I want to make it so I can take some of it on attacks and not gamble a wave will hit while I am away.

Transports solve your mobility problem.  I think 10 minutes would be extreme, but at 7/7, 4-5 minutes should be plenty of time to disengage your fleet, pile into transports, and get where you need to be.

Spreading out static defenses would be ok in this model because you are increasing wave spacing allowing the player to respond with their mobile fleet every wave while still having time to use their mobile units to get other things done.  This isn't a CPA so I know exactly which planets are options for a wave.  If I leave 4 planets as options, I can put 25% of my turrets on each.  Combined with my mobile fleet, unless the wave is larger than single-ingress*, it will be no threat.

I think expecting mobile units to not be needed for defense, especially with multiple fronts, is unrealistic.  And in fact having the defensive game different in one-vs-many defensive fronts provides more variety to the game.  My very first win used a mobile fleet on defense and it felt very different from my first choke-point win that basically made waves ignorable.

* Single-ingress tend to end up not requiring any mobile units to defeat waves.

Except wormhole attrition kills the transports so that's a no go.

This line probably sums up my position:

* Single-ingress tend to end up not requiring any mobile units to defeat waves.

Why should single ingress not require any mobile units and even just going to 2 ingress require a significant mobile fleet presence, let alone 3 or 4 ingress?

Yes, multiple ingress should be harder to defend then single ingress, which requires spreading out your turrets and having some of your fleet present, but some of your fleet and most(all) of your fleet are two very different things.

Having said all that, the general feeling I am getting is that their generally is agreement the game favors single ingress too much over multiple ingress at the moment. So, the feasible tweaks I have seen suggested are:

1) Turret boosting structure that only boosts while there are less then X turrets in the system.

2) Split caps so that the number of turrets that can be build in a system don't change but there are more turrets available globally.

3) Tweak the wave calculation so that the maximum wave size for multiple ingress gets smaller the same way the average wave size does.

4) Alternatively as a quick fix, make gate raiding more appealing. Reduce the AIP cost for a warp gate to 3 and boost the command station to 17.

Alternative 4 I just thought of and is more of a band-aid fix that makes it easier to setup that single-ingress defence via gate-raiding then it is actually fixing this issue.

Alternative 3 is my preferred one. The exact numbers need to be determined but if I wasn't having to cover the worst case scenario of a wave 80% as strong as the single-ingress wave even with 5 systems exposed, I suspect that would fix this issue for me.

D.

[Lancefighter]

Is it possible to do something like.. per system caps that depend on the command station?

Like a military command station can have 25 of item, whereas a logistic station can have 10, and an economic 5?
Or even going farther, higher rank military stations can have more of the turrets too..

The idea being that your defense in the system is primarily a projection of the command station's might somehow. Certain defensive structures might be able to exist outside of this system though (I'm not entirely sure I want modular fortresses 1 per system, for instance). But Heavy Beam Cannons for instance (in particular the mk4 one) might also exist outside of this?

actually, I am not really sure I support universe wide caps at all, except on superweapons like fortresses. There definately should be some items you can build to augment a planet's natural defenses (the natural defenses being the ones the command center suppports innately), but I dont think limiting turrets globally is the right idea any more.

[Toranth]

Don't forget the side-effects that can result from some of these proposed changes.
For example, considering just the idea of a per-system turret cap.  Two immediate and large changes come to mind.

First, it strongly encourages the unlocking of more, and higher-level turrets, to be able to place more in a given system.  This, in combination with Neinzul Drones, Modular Fortresses, and Spire Captial Ships, all pushes turret unlocks.  That means less usage of Knowledge to unlock high Mk fleetships or starships.  While not a bad thing, necessarily, this would seem to have the effect of pushing players to a more homogeneous strategy.

Second, per-system caps encourage defense in depth: multiple sacrificial worlds that each have max system-cap turrets between the border and the Homeworld.  That means capturing more systems.  More systems, more AIP, bigger waves, more need for defense.  With the upgrade to wave strength and reinforcements based on AIP, and the major reduction in effectiveness in AIP reducers (-50% at diff 9), the AIP increase from an additional in-depth system could easily have a much more harmful effect.
On top of that, the appeal of sacrificial systems has dropped (in my view) with the redo of the Energy system.  On single HW games, I rarely get enough of an energy surplus to be able to lose systems.  Needing to build systems that I know are going to be overrun but being unable to afford the energy loss?  Especially when running Matter Converters to keep the energy up eats into that same resource budget that I need to rebuild my defensive systems.

As a positive, per-system caps would make it easier than before to protect things like FacIVs, Fabs, or their ilk.


Finally, I think there's been a lot of discussion of individual waves vs fixed defenses - but as Wanderer said, what about threat, CPAs, Hybrids, and Exos? 

3) Tweak the wave calculation so that the maximum wave size for multiple ingress gets smaller the same way the average wave size does.
<snip>
Alternative 3 is my preferred one. The exact numbers need to be determined but if I wasn't having to cover the worst case scenario of a wave 80% as strong as the single-ingress wave even with 5 systems exposed, I suspect that would fix this issue for me.

What if the wave size was determined, then always split amongst ALL possible ingress systems?  That way, even as you split your defenses n-ways, the AI splits the attack n-ways.  A 5 ingress empire would put 20% of defenses in each system, while the AI would send 20% of each wave to each system.

[TechSY730]

3) Tweak the wave calculation so that the maximum wave size for multiple ingress gets smaller the same way the average wave size does.
<snip>
Alternative 3 is my preferred one. The exact numbers need to be determined but if I wasn't having to cover the worst case scenario of a wave 80% as strong as the single-ingress wave even with 5 systems exposed, I suspect that would fix this issue for me.

What if the wave size was determined, then always split amongst ALL possible ingress systems?  That way, even as you split your defenses n-ways, the AI splits the attack n-ways.  A 5 ingress empire would put 20% of defenses in each system, while the AI would send 20% of each wave to each system.

Only problem with that is thanks to the complex interaction of army sizes and individual unit strengths, this could wind up being much easier (or possibly harder, hard to tell) than the current scenario, in very, very hard to predict ways.
And making the AI ALWAYS split up like this with a "naive" splitting of forces with no bonuses/penalties means that whatever split becomes the "optimal on average" for difficulty becomes the new dominant defensive layout, with little reason to try to invest in other ways.

[Diazo]

... that whatever split becomes the "optimal on average" for difficulty becomes the new dominant defensive layout, with little reason to try to invest in other ways.

Really, this is what I'm trying to avoid. I want different defensive setups to be viable depending on the map.

From a purely defensive standpoint, a single-ingress setup should always be optimal.

I just want to make it so if the map layout puts the capturables out in various ways, the additional difficulty of defending multiple ingress points is worth the extras you capture.

Right now it's more of a cliff that is so steep it is not worth it regardless of what's out there. (At least in my opinion.)

D.

[Hearteater]

Except wormhole attrition kills the transports so that's a no go.

Transports don't attrition within your own system, which solves the problem for any connected systems.  For satellite systems, a separate solution is needed and in fact a Warp Jammer Command Station already exists to solve that problem.

[Diazo]

Except wormhole attrition kills the transports so that's a no go.

Transports don't attrition within your own system, which solves the problem for any connected systems.  For satellite systems, a separate solution is needed and in fact a Warp Jammer Command Station already exists to solve that problem.

Playstyle difference strike again! 

I very often operate 3+ hops deep in AI space, 5 hops out to incur deep strike is, while not common, far from rare in my games. Transports can't get that far out of player supply without the self-attrition killing them.

And that does not count satellite systems several hops out. A warp jammer command can prevent a wave from targetting them, however if my fleet is at the satellite, such as my homeworld assault preparation system and the wave strikes my homeworlds 5 hops away I'm probably still not getting there in time.

D.

[keith.lamothe]

I really don't think balancing the game around 10/10 is a good idea.

Nor I, and that's not what's been or being done.  7, 8, and 9 (and intermediaries) each have their purpose, and 10 has its purpose.  7 and 8 are more important than 10, but are also generally closer to their goals than 10 has been since I changed some things that were making 10 artificially harder right at the beginning (thus revealing that it wasn't hard enough later on).  That's why 9 and 10 have been getting more attention lately.

[Diazo]

Okay, real world example time.

A wave of 1,360 missile frigates was just announced. (Diff 9.0, AIP 127)

Looking at the wave logs here are some stats:

Actual Ingame: 1,360 frigates at a wave size of 1.91 with 3 ingress points.
Looking at the logs, this wave could have been between 1.3 and 2.2 so it was 87% as big as it could have been.

Scaling this up to what if on a single-ingress point would have made this a wave size of 2.3, or 1,638 frigates. 

So, that's a reduction from 1,628 frigates to 1,360 frigates for exposing 3 systems to attack instead of only 1.

That means the wave was only 270 ships smaller and hit sooner because said wave was smaller. To me, that is not worth it for reducing your static defenses per system to 33% of what they could be if you had them all in one system.

Only got 15 minutes in-game tonight so I don't have another wave to post as an example yet, but these are the numbers that I'm seeing in game and are prompting me to raise this as an issue.

D.

[Fluffiest]

Well, what advantages do multi-ingress setups give you compared to single-chokepoint tactics? Primarily, I think, you have either more Knowledge (from capturing more worlds) or less AIP (from not having to gate-raid). In games with superweapons (spirecraft and golems) turned on, you'll have more of those too; but Diazo has specifically stated that he doesn't have these minor factions on. You also have more M+C per second and more energy, so you can build faster - especially if you have multiple space docks - and support a larger fleet.

Multiple ingresses feel like they should demand the attention of the mobile fleet to defend rather than relying on turrets (especially since one world's worth of knowledge gets you about one turret unlock), but getting them across the intervening territory in time can be difficult, especially given waves come more frequently when you have multiple ingresses. What you really want is a way to quickly recall the mobile fleet, but I can't think of anything that's not massively abusable for other purposes. I guess you could scrap part of the mobile fleet and rebuild it on-site in response to a wave announcement?

The suggestion of per-planet caps on defensive units immediately made me think of Fortresses. We're already looking for a way to make these structures more interesting - making them valuable for multi-ingress defense would be a good way to distinguish them from just a Really Big Turret.

I agree with Diazo that the max wave size needs to go down for multi-ingress situations. You need to prepare for the biggest possible wave, not the average.

[chemical_art]

Okay, real world example time.

A wave of 1,360 missile frigates was just announced. (Diff 9.0, AIP 127)

Looking at the wave logs here are some stats:

Actual Ingame: 1,360 frigates at a wave size of 1.91 with 3 ingress points.
Looking at the logs, this wave could have been between 1.3 and 2.2 so it was 87% as big as it could have been.

Scaling this up to what if on a single-ingress point would have made this a wave size of 2.3, or 1,638 frigates. 

So, that's a reduction from 1,628 frigates to 1,360 frigates for exposing 3 systems to attack instead of only 1.

That means the wave was only 270 ships smaller and hit sooner because said wave was smaller. To me, that is not worth it for reducing your static defenses per system to 33% of what they could be if you had them all in one system.

Only got 15 minutes in-game tonight so I don't have another wave to post as an example yet, but these are the numbers that I'm seeing in game and are prompting me to raise this as an issue.

D.

Wow, with those mechanics, its more efficent to gate raid and take the hit and get a higher aip and waves to chomp down your fronts.

Even if you completely knocked out the worlds but don't take them (gate raiding with knowledge I joke) for 3 planets it still would be slightly more efficient. The AI response would double, but your defensive strength triples.

[Kahuna]

Another alternative that came to mind was to make modular fortresses (and perhaps normal fortresses) have a per-planet cap and no global cap at all.  That way you could defend as many planets as you wanted that way in a fairly high-powered but still finite fashion, without buffing single-planet defenses further.

YES
Then Fortresses would (probably) be worth the resources, knowledge and energy.

[keith.lamothe]

Then Fortresses would (probably) be worth the resources, knowledge and energy.

They're already a great deal on knowledge.  And they're really expensive in resources and energy but that hasn't stopped several players from using them as keys to their defenses on high difficulty games

And that change wouldn't actually make them any better deals in terms of resources and energy, just in terms of knowledge, because the m+c+e is per-unit, however many of the units you have.