-Okay this is an attempt to summarize my entire argument concisely and clearly, because I think I’ve repeated several points several times. Notably at the moment, the majority of opinions in this thread support either the old inhibitor or a compromise. Few have supported the current system.
To be clear lets define the current systems:
The Old: PJI blocks prevents any attempt to leave the system by the enemy.
The New: PJI only blocks attempts to leave the system via into one of your controlled systems.
Argument 1: The AI Issue
Some have said that the PJI of old was too brutal on the AI. This is a misconception first of all in that the AI actually loses most fights because it attempts to retreat. Since the old PJI prevents retreats the AI is forced to fight. Now sadly this means it fights with what little forces it sends, which is another fault of the AI. The fact is that the AI by not retreating will do more damage, and in those cases where it does have significant forces a true battle will occur. Whereas with the New PJI, the enemy takes damage and retreats, often re-entering and then retreating again and again.
The problem lies in not the New or Old PJI. The AI both benefits and suffers from each system, thus why this is not a valid argument against or for any PJI system; its really an argument for a better AI. Notably we have been told the AI will see constant improvement and we are only on beta 2. We should ignore this issue.
Argument 2: Scouting/In Depth Tactics
I think we can all realize that the New PJI does not encourage scouting ‘as much’ or ‘at all’ compared with the old PJI. This is in relation to the risk that a PJI provides. The New provides no risk to the attack, while the Old provides extreme risk to the attacker. The Old system did absolutely therefore, encourage scouting, paying attention, and in the event of reinforcements/mistakes, clever fleet action to attack and destroy the Old PJI in order to escape. Notably the Old PJI was at such a high risk that occasionally the AI is benefited by the fact that it would build 2 or 3, if you didn’t scout you were stuck in that system, and the AI would inadvertently take advantage.
More scouting is a feature that eludes to a deeper meaning; IE more in depth tactics. The current system does not encourage more thought or consideration, thus it simplifies and removes depth. You see with the new system you don’t need to scout a system based on the presence of PJI; its still helpful to scout, but for entirely unrelated reasons.
Argument 3: The High Risk No-No’s
The crux of the ‘pro’ New PJI argument is the idea that such a high risk to the attacker via the Old PJI encourages turtling; and discourages offensive action and raids. This is actually a very valid point; however it is not a good argument for the current New PJI; which is another extreme of a pendulum; instead it is a much better argument for a ‘COMPROMISE’ PJI. Which the majority of posters in this thread have mentioned as viable or preferred… but back to that system later.
Argument 4: New PJI is Not Effective
One reason why a Compromise or Old PJI should be used is that the New PJI is not very useful in regards to its cost. All the PJI does is prevent ‘bypassing’ your frontline system, and therefore it actually provides no benefit to the frontline system itself. The tactical points could be better spent on defenses which will hold and kill forces which attempt to bypass. The critical flaw of thinking that a prevention of bypass is useful, is the assumption that a bypass strategy is a good one. Its not, again and again we as player’s end up with massive single fleets that simply and steadily cleanse one world after another. Bypassing a heavily defended frontline system will accrue a great deal of damage, and then you enter the PRESUMED undefended system that you go to. Obviously closer to your enemies factories, and so there is a higher risk of enemy reinforcements, also with the New or Old PJI, a PJI in this second system will prevent any retreat because you bypassed a enemy-friendly system!
This is bad enough but if the enemy has real defenses here and you do retreat, your now back in the heavily defended frontline system! Any decent player can make an enemy bypass into an utter disaster! In fact what the New PJI encourages is that you place very few or NO defenses in your frontline system, to encourage the enemy to bypass it and get trapped in the second system which should now have a New PJI and defenses. OR the enemy plays it safe bombarding a colony, granting you precious re-enforcement time.
So the question is; do you like a PJI which forces you to think and scout frontline systems and engage in daring assaults? Which notably with the Old PJI the bypass strategy is more effective, as if you can take out the PJI the second system is rarely defended heavily as the point of the Old PJI is to prevent the need for secondary defenses. If anything the New PJI encourages as much turtling if not more! And at the sacrifice of the frontline!
Argument 5: I’m not always right.
Not everyone here can say that about themselves, when I started posting I was purely thinking the old PJI should be restored, but several pages later, and I can see the oppositions point, and feel a compromise is preferred and actually offers new opportunities to provide more tactics and depth. So now I prefer a compromise; the exact form of course would be the Dev’s call. (not that we actually make any calls lol)
The MS PJI (Major Stress) is IMO the best compromise though a better one may be out there. By limiting the PJI to a certain physical range but by utterly blocking a retreat it gives us the best of all worlds.
1. The enemy should scout now and plan attacks, but now the decision is no longer ‘go or no go?’ now since the PJI only effects 1 or possibly 2 lanes, we get more choice ‘go, no-go, or from another angle go?’
2. The MS PJI is actually useful to the frontline system itself, but is not cheap or totally effective because you may need more than one, and they will have to be placed forward towards the jump lane, you cannot place all your inhibitors in the rear and laugh as the enemy is trapped until he gets rid of them, the Inhibitor is now literally a frontline construction. Thus you can still retreat as you will have a much higher chance of either A getting out of range from the inhibitor or B it will be easier to kill and leave.
3. MS PJI can also prevent or not prevent a bypass, making the strategy still quite possible, as the PJI to prevent a bypass would be placed in the rear of the system, if the enemy somehow gets in past the primary defenses, you would have to dedicate defenses in the rear with this PJI to prevent a bypass! This weakens the frontline defense, making for the possible tactics of ‘Feints’! Bring in a quick force meant to bypass, a couple of times and watch the enemy build rear defenses, then bring in a new bypass forces, and then a new frontline attack force!
Conclusion:
We can argue around in circles regarding the New and Old, I feel that the Old is better than the new, but I can see that it’s not always black and white; can some of you? The MS PJI is the best idea for pleasing the most people (from what I can tell via these boards) and in addition offers us more possibilities for tactics and strategy, something several people are very worried about! I currently feel the game is just too straight forward and taking away the Old PJI made it much worse! The New PJI doesn’t offer anything new, but the MS PJI actually offers us the best of everything; valid retreat tactics, valid defense tactics, and new opportunities like feints.
The only thing left for me to say is that I hope Ironclad responds to this topic/post again, just one more time. I think this can be the best solution and honestly will produce a better game, especially for multi-player.
