View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002222 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - New Features | Dec 31, 2010 6:11 am | Aug 26, 2014 10:25 am | |
| Reporter | orzelek | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Severity | minor | ||||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 4.059 | ||||
| Summary | 0002222: Turret cap modification | ||||
| Description | Currently we have an option to spread turrets in any way we want - this leads to uber-fortified systems that may contain all of your available turrets. This also promotes reducing number of choke-points. Please consider adding per-planet turret cap. This would allow nice increase to overall turret caps and give us ability to create more defensive fortifications on few planets = more diversity in game play possibilities. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | New | ||||
|
|
Honeslty? I find this to be part of the charm of AI wars. ... Seriously. The AI will punish you if you rely on said too much. Well. Sometimes it does anyway xD And x4000 has been working on better ways for it to do so too. |
|
|
This is a possibility, but not for right now. It's an interesting idea, but I can see both sides of it. |
|
|
how about partial ship cap. where u have global ship cap, then u have planet wide ship cap. global 100 basic turret, planet wide +25 basic turret when u have more than 25 turrets on planet it starts taking it away from global. thus u have 50 turrets u have have left for global is 75. |
|
|
I am somewhat against this. What you end up with is that you can no longer effectivly play snake-style maps with a massive front (why else would you play that map-style). And if it goes together with an increase of turret-cap you just replace your front-line defence with a deeper defence and effectivly get the same thing, but now you always lose x planets before you are able to stop the AI. I like my strat/thought/playingstyle to decide how I set up my planets, not caps. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
well it could have separate technology unlock, at 5x - 2x knowledge increase u can get more turrets. or something similar. i would like to some how defend planets without use of turrets without need of mobile fleet. mind u having less than 100 AIP solves this problem but hard to come by. |
|
|
I will agree that it is problematic to defend a dispersed grouping of planets given the current constraints on turrets and ships (if you have more than 7 planets, and you haven't managed to cluster them, you're going to have problems even from border aggression and the like), but I don't think this is the solution. Making mk2 and mk3 turrets a little cheaper could work okay, because it's (excluding Basic Turrets and Lightning Turrets) 2000 to 3000 knowledge for just one turret unlock at mk2, and having just one turret unlock at mk2 isn't going to help with the defenses. Knowledge costs for mk2 turrets should probably be reduced by 1/4, or maybe even halved (excluding lightning and basic turrets) because you really need combinations of them for them to be effective, and you're less likely to "blob" them given a broad front (in fact, you can only really blob them if you have a choke point), and in the competition between ships and turrets for knowledge, ships are always going to win because they are more versatile (mobile) and actually allow you to advance (mk3 ships also being exceedingly expensive, yet necessary, to advance, whereas turrets are not usually *absolutely necessary* to upgrade). |
|
|
Perhaps a sort of secondary basic-turret could be added that works like a CC. You can only build x on each planet. That will keep the game as it is but does allow you to leave some static defenses behind without comprimising how people choose to play their game. Lowering the knowlegde-cost for higher mk-turrets (much) will just result in everyone having so many turrets available that border hostilities need to be redone to allow them to be and remain a threat. |
|
|
I am not in favour of this. I already find that I have to consider my expansion and my avalaible resources and territory (e.g. ships and turrets). Expand too much and you water out defences too much. With more defences as I expand I think it will offset some of this nice strategic value choise I need to make. |
|
|
my feedback acutally is that we might have a game setting to test a soft cap on units/turrets. each unit after a ship cap not necessarily the current one would multiply the cost and time required to build. i would recommend that turning this flag on would halve the unit cap initially and double costs for each multiple of unit numbers. would allow people to have variety and see why or why not to do this. |
|
|
Disagree, current caps are fine imo, and expanding them more will lead to more turtling. As much as you should be able to advance you must also be able to defend a number of planets. CPAs also help reinforce this notion. King |
|
|
If you build too much of a chokepoint beware of AI Beachheads. |
|
|
Support as an option not as a fundimental design change. Hard caps are a fundimental part of the game - requiring the unlocking of higher tiers to get more. The main exception being the sniper/spider path with no 3rd tier |
|
|
I question how this is under "considering" when the current test build has it at the time of my writing. (mk1-3 per planet, mk4 galaxy capped but at old values) since I rarely built the super deathball world of doom (whipping boy) and gateraided to set it up, I rather like this idea, although the per planet caps seem a bit excessive to me at 50% of the old galaxy wide caps. I think the split cap suggestion offered by soMe RandoM would be the ideal way to go with this, but barring that(which could be a technical nightmare) I honestly feel the current per planet cap is a bit excessive- I don't unlock mark 2 for more cap, I unlock it for radar damp. just my 2 cents. |
|
|
This has been implemented and should be closed. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2010 6:11 am | orzelek | New Issue | |
| Dec 31, 2010 7:02 am | RogueThunder | Note Added: 0007291 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 12:43 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0007367 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 12:43 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Jan 3, 2011 12:43 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => considering |
| Jan 8, 2011 7:25 am | soMe_RandoM | Note Added: 0007969 | |
| Jan 8, 2011 8:57 am | Red Spot | Note Added: 0007972 | |
| Jan 8, 2011 8:58 am | Red Spot | Note Edited: 0007972 | |
| Jan 8, 2011 9:00 am | soMe_RandoM | Note Added: 0007974 | |
| Jan 8, 2011 9:02 am | soMe_RandoM | Note Edited: 0007974 | |
| Jan 8, 2011 9:45 am | Sunshine | Note Added: 0007982 | |
| Jan 8, 2011 10:37 am | Red Spot | Note Added: 0007984 | |
| Feb 2, 2011 9:38 am | Ozymandiaz | Note Added: 0009947 | |
| Feb 12, 2011 2:04 am | motai | Note Added: 0010286 | |
| Feb 12, 2011 2:05 am | motai | Note Edited: 0010286 | |
| Feb 12, 2011 3:14 am | kingisaaclinksr | Note Added: 0010295 | |
| Feb 12, 2011 6:02 am | KDR_11k | Note Added: 0010301 | |
| Feb 23, 2011 12:04 pm | Winter Born | Note Added: 0010683 | |
| May 31, 2014 2:42 am | malkiel | Note Added: 0038395 | |
| Aug 25, 2014 3:40 pm | corfe83 | Note Added: 0039104 | |
| Aug 26, 2014 10:25 am | keith.lamothe | Internal Weight | => New |
| Aug 26, 2014 10:25 am | keith.lamothe | Status | considering => resolved |
| Aug 26, 2014 10:25 am | keith.lamothe | Resolution | open => fixed |
