I think the only sensible way to avoid that is to have designed everything differently with no strength gradients
A possible finer-detail problem with the strength gradient idea is that it currently applies to human offence much more than it applies to Thargoid offence
The cost of retaking a shell of systems is roughly 1/N^3 per system, so roughly 1/N per shell as you get further out.
But the cost of holding a shell is - once you get far enough out that the Maelstrom is able to use its full Alert budget, anyway - solely proportional to 1/N^3 because the amount of attacks doesn't depend on the system strength at all.
So you always end up with a situation where A/oN ~= 1/dN^3 and neither side can make further progress [1] - the question is simply where that boundary ends up:
- sufficiently close to the Maelstrom that zero systems is stable
- at some distance the Thargoid expansion might plausibly reach in months to years
- sufficiently far from the Maelstrom that the Thargoid expansion will only halt
after it has eaten the bubble
[1] A = number of Alerts, N = distance, o and d constants to represent that offensive and defensive actions to systems with nominally the same strength as measured in samples aren't of completely equivalent difficulty in practice.
1) Fdev has implemented some rules changes that have essentially halted and reversed the progress that was made?
2) Are we of the general opinion that this has been done to force the players into a 'holding pattern' whilst possible new content is worked on (obviously hampered by the current state of things over at Fdev re poor financial performance and redundancies etc.)
1) That's the overall effect, yes - the Thargoids are now retaking approximately ten systems a week and this week's change will probably accelerate that slightly further.
2) I think it's probably fair to say that they didn't want to risk a situation where sufficiently coordinated attacks led to the war de facto ending in a few months time with eight contained Maelstroms. I'm not sure if that would actually have been possible ... but five was definitely on the table. Whether that's because they have more content to roll out and needed to ensure there was still a war to see it, or because they want the Thargoid presence to be a permanent feature more generally in its current form, we won't find out until later.
I don't think "holding pattern" is really the intent - the war state is now a very long way from equilibrium and today's changes pushed it even further out - if they'd just wanted a return to the pre-U17 stalemate where many Maelstroms were already
in a long-term holding pattern then smaller changes would have sufficed and this week's certainly wouldn't have been necessary.
The problem I think isn't actually the current week-by-week situation:
- the Thargoids are on the attack, gaining systems every week
- strong defences are required to hold what ground can be protected (including Invasions, and lots of people like Invasions)
- there's still room for carefully-placed counter-attacks to blunt the Thargoid advance at the strategic level
That's far
more interesting than a static situation where the frontlines at some Maelstroms don't move for months on end.
The problem is that since the last time that was the situation (last May) we've gained a lot more knowledge about how the Thargoid advance works - most crucially, what the negligible consequences were of their previous greatest extent! - and know that there isn't actually a threat on any meaningful timescale. Shaking up that assumption while
also making it remain clearly possible for players to respond to the threat and prevent it might be rather difficult for Frontier at this stage.
(From an experimentalist point of view, arguably the
next interesting test is just to keep falling back indefinitely and see if there's any maximum size beyond which Frontier will cut the Thargoid's strength again, as they did back in March and May)