can´t phase inhibitors have stacking effects? build one and the enemy has to wait longer to jump out. build two and it takes alot longer and a third could make it impossible to jumpt out. maybe add an upkeep on percentage basis that scales with the number of inhibitors in one system. this way a choke point system has less defenses and the player that wants to build such a system has to pay in form of the inhibitors and the upkeep.

just an idea here i saw this thread beeing suggested by a dev and thought i´d add my two cents.

just my 2 sents here as well,

So if I am reading this right the reason pji's were changed were because:

1: made it impossible to handle superweapons deep in enemy territory if they bottlenecked your forces.

2: made a "Well of death" in which an advancing fleet might pop in but could not get out. because of some large fleet in the area that would obliterate forces.

I have also gathered from the readings there are two preferred philosophies on how these should work, one being the current standing that they should slow traffic, the other being they should block traffic all together. I happen to belong to the last group mentioned.

I figure a possible solution to make people happier would be to add some options in the setup of the game (much like in supreme commander or even Command and Conquer) where superweapons can be enabled disabled. I wouldn't mind seeing an option on how the phase jumps work. meaning have an option where they can be disabled, block, or slow jumps. I figure most people who play the games can agree to the terms of the game.

It is clear that the Beta showed several important drawbacks of making phase inhibitors too power. I would like to summarize:

1. Current phase inhibitors are not working because they do not sufficiently stop enemy fleets from simply going elsewhere. This eliminates one of the supposed main strategic points of this game.

2. The phase inhibitor that completely stopped phasing out was too powerful because it allowed death traps that made the game unfun.

3. Phase inhibitors that would only allow retreats pose the same problems as the case where they stopped all phasing outs. This allowed super turtling strategies until the super weapon.

Therefore to solve these problems, I propose the following alternatives:

1. Make phase inhibitors take up all tactical slots in the system where it's built AND

2. Limit the number of phase inhibitors that can be built based on map size AND

3. Inhibitors should allow retreat.

4. Possibly eliminate the superweapon as it currently adds little value to the game

This way, it will no longer be able to create death traps experienced in the beta.

You now have the ability to create a true strategic choke point but you have to defend it fairly with a fleet. Therefore, the enemy has a fair chance against you to push through. You will have a fair fight, fleet to fleet.

I agree that PJIs are way underpowered and lacking the utility that they had in the Betas. Although Blair did move some posts from the siege frig spam thread to here (a move I agree with), I do view both issues as intimately related.

That is, if PJIs were a lot better the tactic of sending a flotilla of siege frigs deep into the enemies territory and even the enemies HW, would be far more difficult.

Posted this in another thread, then realized that this was the "official" one, I guess, so copying here.

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

PJIs are very unlikely to go back to being able to block phase jumps entirely with no drawbacks(yes, even the 2 connected systems with PJI idea).

Let's start the analysis with some numbers:

Current default phase jump power-up time: 7 seconds
Current default phase jump delay from PJI: 18 seconds (250%)
Total jump time under PJI influence: 25 seconds

The general consensus is that 25 seconds is not long enough, so let's see what we can do:

Adding a research that increases jump delay by an additional 50% (so 300%, 350%, 400%) per rank would give us 28 seconds with rank 1, 32 seconds with rank 2, 35 seconds with rank 3 (assuming rounding up). Okay, so that's 10 extra seconds of delay with some research, not bad right? Still, 10 seconds isn't a whole lot of time, so let's see what else we can do.

Why not make PJIs affect phase space speed itself? Phase lanes can be quite long, and huffing and puffing along them can be a grand time killer without directly trapping the hostile fleet. Why not add on the ability to research incoming and outgoing phase space delay?

Here's how I picture it:

[Basic PJI module research] >(next lab)> [Additional 3 ranks of research for total 400% charge-up delay] >(3 additional labs)> [2 ranks to increase incoming and outgoing phase space speed by 200%]

Pros: PJI progressively gets better as you sink more money into research, instead of being a one shot wonder. It does what it's meant to do still, which is to delay the enemy, without creating a grav well death trap.

Cons: Research costs would add up. Some races would get access considerably earlier than others (Vasari), and on smaller maps not all races may be able to make full use of them.

The cons, for me, are actually pretty arguable. Vasari are meant to be the masters of phase tech, so I can live with them having access to the complete PJI path 2 labs ahead of the TEC. This also wouldn't stop people bypassing your choke points, but it would slow it down considerably (35 second charge up, incoming AND outgoing phase space speed reduced by 200%).

There's my idea

What if they just reduce the tactical slot cost for Inhibitors?

I have a couple of solutions to offer on this then:

1: Make a separate super-weapon that is available to all three races that is a special phase-jump disruptor. We could set it so that there can only be one for your whole empire so that you do not shut off ALL of the approaches to the core of your empire (unless you were smart and found a spot with a single planet choke-point to set up behind). The disruptor could have a range just for that gravity well (it is a super weapon after all), but still possible to destroy it with a big fleet. We could also set it up to use a TON of tactical points just like the other superweapons, so that you cant plop one down and then surround the damn thing in repair stations and cannons and fighter bays.

2: Add an end-game tech for each of the races that nullifies the effect of the jump-disruptor. There is already such a thing for the scouts, so it would not be that much of a stretch to put that in. The way I see it, by the time you have researched all that way, you probably have a big enough fleet to take it down anyways, unless someone has dumped their entire economic gain for half an hour into their choke point.

3: Keep it the way it is and learn to use tactics that combat the fact that it only slows it down. I defended a 4 planet cluster with three approach from 5 hard computers for two hours, and only lost because I sent out my main fleet to make an offensive against one of the enemies closest to me. Then I interpreted an incomming enemy fleet wrong and sent my defensive fleet the wrong way, and they managed to destroy a planet before I could get them turned around and headed back.

I say just change the default jump time to a higher value. Thus the 250% would grow substantially and even where PJI's are not in place it would help hopscotching. And bringing in reinforcements would a 'pins and needles' affair, adding to the intensity.

The problem with allowing another super weapon tech that fixes the phase hopscotch is that it doesn't do anything for the beginning game. Phase hop scotch is an issue that I face the moment a scout enters my empire. The default phase time needs to be increased at least three times to make phasing kind of a big deal, and then the PJI needs to increase it more than that. I think we can find a compromise here where the PJI does not lock down all phase travel like in beta, but where we can actually have fleet engagements.

i've found that PJI's are next to useless also. do you have to upgrade them in some way? i was even clicking on them when i saw ships retreating, thinking that padlock icon is supposed to do something....

I really hope someone actually does something about this in the next patch... It seems to be the biggest problem by far.

Ah now I see why it was nerfed down. But present gameplay, the PJI is next to useless and a waste of funds.

Does the PJI stack or anything? And it only slows down enemies from exiting the planet right?

I could understand this item would be a LOT better if it slowed down an enemy head towards the planet, since it would give you a few extra seconds - minutes to get a defensive fleet to that world.

I believe so. I haven't tried it yet, but since it has a defined radius I assume it would.

Best idea yet! The only problem I see with it is that you'd need to have PJI's at multiple points in your empire, because although your fleet can get ahead of theirs to defend, they can just keep running the gauntlet without taking major losses. I think that the PJIs still need to delay the jump more. I'd boost the delay to 30-40 seconds (on top of normal delay). Additionally, someone suggested increasing time to phase out. I think that that is a decent idea, it seems just a little short now. Maybe to 12 seconds?

Nevermind - WWW Link

I like my friend's idea about a frigate class ship with the "ability" to completely disrupt phase jumps. Keep the PJI the same, BUT add a ship that has an AoE (limited radius) that can stop the enemy from completely leaving. This would have then please both crowds. Just blow up the ship(s), obviously they would have fairly fragile and expensive, to prevent spamming of these vessels too!

If this has already been mentioned, please forgive the response!

2 and 3 are not the case. People act as if a phase inhibitor was not even on the field as a building. An attacking fleet can easily include a few bombers, artillery or other fast attack units that can take out the inhibitor to jump away or farther into the enemy territory. It's the same thing as claims that defense turrets would be overpowered with working PJI's - whatever happened to fighting defenses by outranging them with artillery frigates? Since when is it more "strategic" to nerf defenses instead of using the units that are designed to take them out.

why not make it so superweapons, whatever they are, be they TEC, Vasari or advent, disable or destroy PJIs on planets they are fired at? That would make it so at least late game you'd have some kind of back and forth going.

Apologies if this has been suggested elsewhere, but how about PJI's not only increasing jump charge time, but if there is an non-allied PJI on both ends of the phase lane it also increases the time in transit so that a pursuing fleet could enter the jump after needling the target fleet and then arrive at least a few seconds ahead of them. It would make it ever more difficult to jump right to the heart of the homeworld since you could have a fleet respond given the time advantage. Perhaps could even make the effect cumulative as you control more phase lanes.

Incredibly well-stated.

In fact, I have looked into this somewhat. The "turtling behind a PJI with a superweapon" excuse that people throw around is TOTALLY false - an excuse to justify nerfing down the PJI. I know this because the minute proposals were made to eliminate this concern (just make pregame options to drop the re-buffed PJI or the superweapon), the very same people came out against those proposals.

The REAL deal is that there is a group of people who have a gaming philosophy that is different than yours or mine. In other words, they just don't like PJIs (and they don't like defenses, either). Those things simply "get in the way." They have a certain play style, and a certain gameplay dynamic that they have in mind, and they don't want anything interfering with that.

What you said makes total sense, of course: there were never any OP turtling strats with the old PJI. Just like with any other building, you could simply kill the PJI and move on. The real issue was simply gameplay dynamic - gameplay philosophy. Why not simply be honest about it?

Of course, the claim that a PJI somehow made defenses impregnable is ludicrous too, as you point out. The PJI didn't magically add power to any defenses. Plus, defenses in this game are made of paper anyway. Who would possibly fear going into a field of turrets to take out a PJI? When I used to play this game I'd have a whole fleet of enemy siege frigates waltz past my firing turrets and capital ships, take down my planet, and then waltz out again without a care in the world, while I sat there and watched with my mouth wide open. Why couldn't this be done with a PJI?

In short, I couldn't agree with you more.

That doesn't follow. Just because we don't like the solutions you came up with, doesn't change the fact that developers changed it because of that balance concern.



Actually, I love defenses. I loved the old way the PJI worked, and I really didn't like that it went bye-bye... but I understand why.



Um, yes there were with the beta 1 / 2 style. You ended up with the uber-fleets of doom smashing away, a habit that is still damaging play styles. And while the beta 3 / 4 version didn't cause OP defensive issues, thats because we didn't have any super weapons to play around with.



Only if you have a very strong fleet with you.

Now, if you want to argue that scale is damaging this game, I'd agree with you -- we need some way to increase defensive strength as map size increases, as on smaller maps defenses can, if anything, be OP, while on larger ones they become increasingly weak.

Clearly defenses would be bolstered by capital ships, since what you're suggesting would no longer enable ships to bypass planets, only retreat from them. So, in essence, what this would create is thinly veiled battle lines, where the only way to progress the line is to take front line planets and so forth. Now unless they limit the production of PJI's, every planet will surely have one. What all this will clearly amount to is folks blocking their front lines with ship/defenses, and the game, essentially, forcing, people to fight through said defenses to reach the PJI. You really think a player with a clear understanding of strategy is not going to stock up their front line planets with PJI'? Or better yet, not have large fleets parked in the same location, waiting to continue the advance, since, mind you, you'll no longer have to pursue renegade fleets throughout your territory.

Atleast that's the impression I'm getting, no, I'd prefer if they'ed just increase the time PJI' inhibit the enemy.

If the PJI is buffed back to the way it was you will see most games play out with everyone as TEC, everyone has a pit of death opposing the enemy's pit of death and then everyone builds 8 or more super weapons and proceeds to kill off the other players planets before they kill off your planets. ya thats an exciting game right there.

you may say why not simply run past the easy defenses and kill his PJI and run a muck? because the problem isn't the defensive structures at a planet, its the all the defensive structures PLUS his fleet standing on top of where you jump in or on top of his PJI in the middle of 33(or 29 with 2 repair platforms)defense platforms or 23 on an asteroid. turrets may be weak on there own but do not underestimate them with fleetsupport.

however with that said i do believe that the current PJI is underpowered. As it is even if you place one in each system that the enemy is passing through it still barely slows them down, and its to close to the exit, it doesn't slow someone down much unless you already on top of them when there exiting, in my experiance someone was still able to keep a fleet ahead of my and play hopscotch through my territory even though i one in almost every sector.

I would like to see any combination of the following happen:

1)I believe it should AT LEAST affect the entire gravity well where ever you place it. that way they have to run way out of there way to kill it or suffer the penalty of time , at the absolute least make it large enough to cover 2 exits or the entire 45 degree jump angle without being so close to the front line

2)Increase the delayed time to somewhere in the 35 to 40 second range

3)Slow down incoming ships, say starting half way out on the phase line to the planet you have a PJI in and if you have a PJI in the system someone is jumping from and a PJI in the system there going to it slows them down on the entire phase lane. however i'm afraid this might slow someone down to much to the point where you will always be there and effectivly making a mobile pit of death, mainly want it to be about the point where if i'm chasing them they can't run around and destroy all my infrastructure and still live to run away

i had some more ideas but i can't remember them right now =/

If Phase Inhibitors could lock down passage further into systems :

Scenario 1 : You attack with a light fleet for the purposes of destroying economy, his entire fleet is waiting in the choke and basically destroys your fleet in the time it takes you to destroy the PI and advance to the far end of the system.
Attacker : Resources Lost (in form of a small fleet)
Defender : Units Lightly Damaged
Outcome : Attacker loses in power

Scenario 2 : You attack the choke with the largest fleet you can muster. The enemy has the advantage of repair bays and turrets, so his equal sized fleet utterly obliterates your equal sized fleet
Attacker : Moderate to Complete loss of fleet
Defender : Minor to Moderate loss of fleet
Outcome : Defender can counterattack using his fleet and Attacker can not hope to stop it without a fleet of his own.

Scenario 3 : You invade the system with your entire fleet, hoping to strike a crippling economic blow, you destroy the mines, while taking damage, destroy the PI, while taking damage, destroy the planet, and move onto the next system.
Attacker : Moderate loss of fleet
Defender : Temporary loss of Credit, Metal, Crystal Income, Minor replacement costs
Outcome : Attacker loses fair quantity of ships for every system he pillages, defender loses mainly income, ends when the attack runs out of units, and can't escape because phase gates have been rebuilt in the systems he had already been in, preventing him from escaping. Defender then has his complete fleet while attacker only has a few scattered troops for defense. Defender easily completely destroys a fair number of planets in retribution and fortifies them before Attacker can get his fighting force back up.

These scenarios represent your only 3 strategic options that I can see(if I missed something, tell me, please). As you can see, prohibitive phase gates really discourage attacking of any sort.

Oh really? Then let's discuss why you don't like the solutions I came up with.

If you could drop the re-buffed PJI and/or the superweapon from the game in the pregame setup options (one of my solutions), and if you are a player who doesn't like the idea of playing some turtler with a superweapon, you simply do the following:

When hosting a game, you drop the re-buffed PJI, but keep the superweapon. Alternatively, if you are not hosting a game, you look for a game to join which has the PJI dropped but keeps the superweapon. This would create a game almost identical to the game that you have now.

Effect: You get the game you want to play, with the gameplay mechanic that exists now. Others get the game they want to play, with a different gameplay mechanic. You are happy, they are happy.

Now, why don't you like that solution, since it gives you the game you want to play, while also giving others the game they want to play? The only possible reason would be that you want to force OTHERS to play YOUR particular game. See, I don't. I want everybody to have the game they want. Go ahead, give me a good reason why you oppose such an idea, since it would be no skin off your nose, since you would be getting exactly the kind of game you want to play. I'm listening.



My proposition above eliminates this concern for you - you would either 1) keep the PJI but drop the superweapon, 2) drop the PJI but keep the superweapon, or 3) drop both in your particular games (probably option 2 or 3 for the gameplay mechanic you are looking for). Now, you just said above that it eliminated any OP defensive issues when you dropped the superweapons. So what's your problem with my proposition, since it allows you to do this?

Unless I'm missing something, your arguments have been defeated, so I'll move on to other peoples' comments.



Or destroy front line PJIs, yes. I like this gameplay mechanic. If you don't, you'd do what the guy above does - drop the PJI from your games (that is, assuming we could wave a magic wand and change the game that way, which we can't of course).



Sounds fine and dandy to me. It simulates a lot of warfare in human history, going all the way back to the Battle of Thermopolye (I'm sure I spelled that wrong). Seems to make all the sense in the world to use a map's geography to your tactical and strategic advantage. I don't know why the gameplay mechanic you advocate is superior to the gameplay mechanic outlined above. But again, if you don't like this play style, my suggestions for modifying the game wouldn't force you into it - you'd get the game you want to play.



Sure, I would stock up my front line planets with PJIs, defenses, fleets, etc. given the opportunity to do so, and given no better tradeoff to pursue at the moment (additional expansion, an attack, whatever). Why wouldn't I? And why shouldn't I? You prefer I chase your renegade fleets through my territory, and you chase mine through yours? Why is that somehow superior?



I see. You have one particular taste in a game, I have another. To each his own.

But I do have a question: Why do you advocate increasing the PJI's effectiveness at all? Why don't you either advocate keeping it the way it is now (totally ineffective), or just eliminating it altogether? I don't know what a slightly enhanced PJI does for the style of gameplay you advocate. It seems you are just advocating it be buffed somewhat for no good reason at all.

Moving on to the next person.


I'd much rather have that gameplay mechanic than the one we have now. You'd much rather have the current gameplay mechanic than the one you just described. So what this boils down to is, you don't like the style of game I like, and I don't like the style of game you like. This is the uber-point I made way up there which spawned this series of back and forths: there are opposing camps with different ideas on gameplay philosophy.

By the way, I also had another suggestion, which is equally as simple conceptually as my previous one: Research into PJI cuts off research into superweapon, and research into superweapon cuts off research into PJI. In other words, a player could have a PJI or a superweapon, but not both. This would eliminate your concern.



Yeah, so is the one we have now. Oh joy, phase lanes mean nothing strategically. Why have them at all? Why not just disconnect all phase lanes, and make it so anytime you are outside the gravity well, you are in phase space and can zip around to other planets or stars? Would make far more sense. Oh joy, I just tried to expand to another planet, but I see an enemy fleet heading towards my planet. Time to head back to my planet to defend it! Oh joy, when I went back to defend he left again. Well, I won't play tag, I'll just try to expand again. Oh joy, while trying to expand again, a whole fleet of enemy siege frigates just passed me, going to all my planets! There is no way they can be stopped or deterred unless my fleet goes back to chase them!

Back and forth. Back and forth. Back and forth. Ya, that's an exciting game right there too. Harassment tactics out the ying-yang. Never time to plot or execute any kind of strategy, because the game has boiled down to nothing but tactical hit and runs, raids, and putting out fires everywhere. Boy, my wrist hurts already, just thinking about so much clicking and maneuvering with the mouse. Tell me, what on earth does any of this "running around putting out fires" all over the place have to do with strategy???????

Moving on....



Sure, you are missing several things in your carefully constructed scenarios.

There is no "perfect" gameplay dynamic where there is the theoretical impossibility of a stalemate. In your scenarios, you have constructed two perfectly matched players who have equal amounts of skill. They have fought to obtain equal areas of the map. They have equal economies, equal positions, and equal "will to win." Neither one refuses to call the game a draw, both want to keep butting heads. What's the problem? Doesn't the same thing exist in chess (ever heard of stalemate)? Doesn't the same thing exist in war (think about the trenches between the Germans and French in WWI)? Doesn't the same thing exist in anything? Of course it does.

The same thing even exists in the gameplay mechanic you advocate - the one we have now, and I can prove it with my own carefully constructed scenario: I get a fleet together and rush to my opponent's homeworld, bypassing any of his border worlds and defenses. He gets a fleet together and rushes to my homeworld, bypassing any of my border worlds and defenses. We actually pass each other in the middle of the map, but I continue on and he continues on. I take out all his structures with my fleet and bomb his world into submission. He takes out all my structures with his fleet and bombs my world into submission. I colonize his world, he colonizes mine. We have now just switched places, so we repeat the process. Theoretically, it is a stalemate, since he is no better player than I am.

I can construct other scenarios too. Would you like me to?