After playing a few games I find the AI storyteller seems to assume turrets are much stronger than they really are. With turrets, I get a rapid scale up in raids that leaves me hopeless, without turrets I can fend off every raid with reasonable difficulty. Anyone else finding the same thing?
Side note: I know it's pre-alpha, and this is likely to get fixed, just thought I'd point out an observation.
It is know by tynan and i think he is working on fixing this.
Huge chance of full turrets removal, if that's not the case - huge changes in turrets. Tynan pretty much declared war on turret defenders ;)
The issue with not having turrets is that its extremely difficult to get research for blasting charges up quick enough, and for Cassandra Classic and Kassandra, the difficulty ramps up quite quickly that you can't get good weapons quickly, nor do you have lots of people ready to kill enemy raiders.
I wouldn't advocate a complete removal of turrets, but they need to remain to give you a good chance early game.
They don't. Plenty of people went for no-turrets; no blasting charges, no waffle bunkers challenge and they - welp, we - did great. Not to mention we loved it very, very much.
Not to mention there's a catch 22 in your post ;) Turrets must stay because difficulty of raids ramps up quick... but difficulty of raids ramps quickly because you build turrets :P
The main point is yet different - balance issues are non-issues as this is going to change A LOT. So reasoning that turrets must stay because <right now> raiders are too strong? Not a solid argumentation. Turrets on the other hand - as well as other cheesy mechanics like blast-charge field - make the game too much of a tower defence game. You're not supposed to count your loses in metal - you're supposed to be worried for survival of your colonists and loose them from time to time. Turrets and the rest of the cheese completely negate that EXTREMELY dynamic and potent narrative mechanic.
In a game of survival you are going to do what you have to to live. Which means finding the most defensible spot and funneling any bad guys as much as possible through one spot, even in a real situation you'd want to do something similar. I mean would you rather fight these things yourself or build something that can do it for you? I think turrets should probably be a research, not something you have immediately, but it's certainly not something that should be gotten rid of completely and it should be able to be improved so it doesn't become obsolete. Also Raid strength shouldn't be based on the number of turrets, or any construction that helps against raids, because it's kind of self defeating. These things should be built to make raids easier not harder.
Of course I don't expect anything now but I do hope defensive strategies, particularly automated ones, are not made completely invalid by the time the game IS done and that those who like imposing restrictions upon themselves respect the play styles of those that don't.
Quote from: CmdrQuartz on November 18, 2013, 07:13:05 PMOf course I don't expect anything now but I do hope defensive strategies, particularly automated ones, are not made completely invalid by the time the game IS done and that those who like imposing restrictions upon themselves respect the play styles of those that don't.
This works both ways. If turrets stay, game needs to be balanced around them. So by requesting turrets to be allowed to stay, you don't respect the play-style of others ;) This is not serious argument BTW, as I hope neither was yours.
But, bottom line. It's not about turrets. It's about turrets taking all combat away from colonists. As long as turrets stay in a helpful form, but don't take away all the tactical and narrative engagement? I don't think anyone would mind them staying that way, except maybe for ShadowDragon. There's quite a lot of fuss over this, really, and the main thing people miss is that it's never about the turrets. There is no "turrets problem" - turrets are merely part of the bigger problem. If they can coegsist with the rest of the game, and not harm the system? It's all good.
Another bottom-line is - you can't just say "we like turret defence", it's much deeper than that. One - because tactical system is in game and, more importantly, is promised to be a big part of the game. It really shouldn't be just shoved aside right now. Two - because if you give player a tool like turrets (as they are now - not turrets in general) you teach him one way to deal with the problems and do not present any alternatives. That can very quickly spiral out of control and either rob players of the full experience, or even lead to unfair and punishing difficulty - when player is so used to his one tool, he is not even aware there are other ways to solve a problem. This can be a HUGE problem, and this is exactly why players can't be allowed to opt out of combat completely and simply build more turrets and mine fields instead; with no danger to colonists whatsoever.
Of course no-one is saying fighting part must be in there. It won't hurt to get more options for storytellers at some point - to adjust amount of raiders and so on, and such. Neither is it a problem if turrets can be brought in in a way that does not present the huge problems outlined here.
I can't say I'd be too sad to see the turrets go. If Tynan wants to hurry them out the door, then I'd be glad to help them with their bags if it means they'll be gone that much sooner.
I for 1 want them to stay as I cant seam to keep my peeps alive more then 30days with out the help of blast charges and turets
on a side note I hope nukers are added soon I hate sun power
That's not a very good reason to want them to stay. A reason to want them to stay would be because they are fun to use. If it's too hard to survive without them, and they really do make survival easier (which this thread contests), then if they're removed then survival can simply be made easier to compensate.
My major gripe with turrets is the fact that they explode when destroyed, which never ever happens in real life (excepting very rare magazine chain-reactions). I think this should be replaced with a 10 %chance to explode (taking that into account), otherwise they just go into a 'destroyed' state which costs half their metal to repair.
Additionally you should be able to research a Bunker turret, which has much higher HP total. Then give raiders SPG's so you have to use snipers to target SPG's to protect the bunker turrets protecting you from the rest of the raiders.
Quote from: Galileus on November 18, 2013, 08:16:44 PM
This works both ways. If turrets stay, game needs to be balanced around them. So by requesting turrets to be allowed to stay, you don't respect the play-style of others ;) This is not serious argument BTW, as I hope neither was yours.
But, bottom line. It's not about turrets. It's about turrets taking all combat away from colonists. As long as turrets stay in a helpful form, but don't take away all the tactical and narrative engagement? I don't think anyone would mind them staying that way, except maybe for ShadowDragon. There's quite a lot of fuss over this, really, and the main thing people miss is that it's never about the turrets. There is no "turrets problem" - turrets are merely part of the bigger problem. If they can coegsist with the rest of the game, and not harm the system? It's all good.
Another bottom-line is - you can't just say "we like turret defence", it's much deeper than that. One - because tactical system is in game and, more importantly, is promised to be a big part of the game. It really shouldn't be just shoved aside right now. Two - because if you give player a tool like turrets (as they are now - not turrets in general) you teach him one way to deal with the problems and do not present any alternatives. That can very quickly spiral out of control and either rob players of the full experience, or even lead to unfair and punishing difficulty - when player is so used to his one tool, he is not even aware there are other ways to solve a problem. This can be a HUGE problem, and this is exactly why players can't be allowed to opt out of combat completely and simply build more turrets and mine fields instead; with no danger to colonists whatsoever.
Of course no-one is saying fighting part must be in there. It won't hurt to get more options for storytellers at some point - to adjust amount of raiders and so on, and such. Neither is it a problem if turrets can be brought in in a way that does not present the huge problems outlined here.
In saying that those who request turrets to stay are disrespecting your playstyle, you're still disrespecting the playstyle of others. The real problem is less about game mechanics and more of the depth of player interaction surrounding the game. Tynan wants to see more focus on the combat system because he spent years developing a tactical combat engine. Anyone that doesn't recognize at least that much is giving him a swift punch to the face. The fact that so many players chose to abandon the tactical combat and opt for a turret defense gaming experience is extraordinarily insulting to someone who spent so much time and effort making the game. At the same time, trying to place blame on those players for playing in the most efficient way possible is also distasteful.
A game that is truly great is one that allows multiple playstyles to coexist, like in Minecraft or Team Fortress 2. Making an entire portion of the game redundant or totally removed simply to force players to play the way that you want them to play is a design for a gaming disaster. Either that, or you're trying to create something like Half-Life 2: Episode 2, where the entire game was little more than an interactive cinematic narrative. As great as the Cassandra Storyteller is, it is only one story out of many that players can choose from. If some players want a battlefield combat experience, then put an enemy colony on the map and have the player battle it out. If some players want periodic raider battles, then allow them the option of creating their base around the threat of attack. Some players will want to do the turret defense path, solely focusing on base management and defense placement. Some players will want to be like Dwarf Fortress elites and use the game almost like a DnD storytelling tool. The trick is to find a way to balance all of these differing playstyles in a manner that allows for not only replayability, but also for continuous play after the individual game's "objective" has been reached.
In these formative months, it's important to take data from players, figure out the story of each individual is, and what story each person is trying to achieve. Angry Birds is a game that is a testament to the idea of fitting a game into what people wanted from a game; it is a game that fits into peoples' lives, and not the other way around. Rogue is a game that tells the story of a rogue, and is one of the many successful titles that taps into the wishes of the roleplaying community. It's not about whether this particular mechanic is good or that kind of unit is expendable. It's the overall experience of all of the users that really matters.
RimWorld is a game whose major demographic is currently Dwarf Fortress and Firefly fans. Tapping into these audiences is important for the initial phases of marketing the game, but with the acquisition of enough funding to have Ludeon Studios essentially function as half of Double Fine Productions for a year, development can move towards the bigger question of: What kind of audiences is the game trying to acquire in the long run?
From a totally practical standpoint, I'd want to remove turrets from the next version of the game in order to figure out what most players would do when forced to not use them. Having an entire game mode that doesn't have them is one thing, but outright smacking your fans with something is occasionally a useful tool if you can afford it. Gathering user data is pretty important when you want to mess with the larger scope of a game.
In the end, though, it's all up to Tynan. After all, he literally wrote the book on how to design games.
Look, can't we all just agree to disrespect each others play-style and let Tynan make the game he is gonna make?
I suppose in the end it's impossible to keep all sides of an argument happy. This is why modding is important to the life of a game, it can make everyone happy by changing the things they disagree with. Doesn't need to happen now and I don't know if he has said anything definite but I hope Tynan does support modding.
For the sake of arguing though I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to have fully automated defenses. It shouldn't be easy, metal cost could be exorbitant, could require more regular maintenance outside of the deterioration we have now, perhaps require extensive research, or (and I rather like this one) some blueprints to be found. Last one even adds in some randomization, everyone likes Randy right?... Right?
There should be many ways to play the game and playing with turrets should be one of them. Playing with just colonists should be just as possible. The choice really depends on the gamer and perhaps a touch of luck. Which is why raiders shouldn't be balanced around the existence of things to kill them but rather the other way around. One possible solution I've come up with is checking how fast the raiders get killed once engaged in combat, if it takes ages and there's lots of structural damage then obviously the next one shouldn't be that much more difficult. Alternately if they get wiped out instantly with almost no damage to the player the next set could be significantly harder. I'm sure there's flaws, I haven't put THAT much thought into it, but it's something that could accommodate both styles and player skill as well.
Quote from: Pendryn on November 19, 2013, 03:43:46 AM
Look, can't we all just agree to disrespect each others play-style and let Tynan make the game he is gonna make?
This. LOL
I would be furiously angry if turrets were kicked from the game. Some people - Gallius primarily - are convinced that the ideal RimWorld gameplay experience should involve constant colonist losses.
I disagree. Most strenuously. In fact, it is hard to fully articulate the degree to which I disagree without going into full-fledged personal-attacks mode, so suffice to say my disagreement is vehement and furious. I like turrets. Primarily, I like them because they soak up fire, as they're otherwise basically useless in a fight unless spammed to a ridiculous degree.
As the OP says, the Storyteller drastically overestimates the importance and efficacy of a turret. They're hilariously inaccurate, even when firing at a target running straight at them over open terrain, they fire a pitiful handful of rounds before taking forever to fire again, they don't seem to benefit from sandbag cover, they're four times the size of a colonist, thus making some attacks that would otherwise "miss" still be a hit because they randomly scatter onto another square of the turret*, they don't seem to benefit much, if at all, from being in darkness, and they blow up like a goddamn demo charge when destroyed, because clearly they're made of explodium.
But they draw fire away from my colonists. That's the most important thing of all.
*I'm admittedly not privy to the combat code so I can't say for sure this is the case, but given how hilariously short-lived turrets are in a fight compared to a colonist, despite having 40% more HP than a colonist, I believe this is the case.
Quote from: murlocdummy on November 18, 2013, 11:41:20 PMThe real problem is less about game mechanics and more of the depth of player interaction surrounding the game. Tynan wants to see more focus on the combat system because he spent years developing a tactical combat engine. Anyone that doesn't recognize at least that much is giving him a swift punch to the face. The fact that so many players chose to abandon the tactical combat and opt for a turret defense gaming experience is extraordinarily insulting to someone who spent so much time and effort making the game. At the same time, trying to place blame on those players for playing in the most efficient way possible is also distasteful.
A game that is truly great is one that allows multiple playstyles to coexist, like in Minecraft or Team Fortress 2. Making an entire portion of the game redundant or totally removed simply to force players to play the way that you want them to play is a design for a gaming disaster.
You got it wrong - no-one is trying to blame players for playing turret defence. The fact that they play turret defence while they shouldn't be is clearly Tynan's fault. It's developers fault if game fails telegraph it's intended gameplay - and it's exactly what happened here.
And it's true that removing a whole portion of game, having redundant choices or single choices is a design disaster. And this disaster is named "turrets". It removes the whole portion of game (tactical engine) making it redundant, it lures player to use only one possible solution to a problem and fails to present him with other options. As is now, almost no-one tries to play without turrets out of his own. THIS is the design disaster you were talking about.
The fact that so many players opt out of tactical combat is not an "insult" to Tynan. They don't make an educated choice - hey, turrets are more fun! That was proven already, many players found no-turrets plays to be extremely amazing only after trying. But the game doesn't give the player chance to experience it - it naturally pushes him into turret defence gameplay. It's simply much more effective - why would anyone want to try tactical combat? That's exactly what you was talking about - game design that forces player to choose one option without considering another.
As a single player game focusing on helping a (generally small) group of colonists survive, what is the ideal gameplay?
Is this the part where you're gonna tell me how to play a single player game, better yet a single player game like Rimworld where it's basically "here's your colonists, here's the tools to help them, good luck"?
I don't see a problem with turrets removing all tactical elements from the game. They have crap accuracy, a single grenade is typically enough to cause ammo detonation, said detonation destroys everything within a couple blocks of them and is enough to knock out or otherwise kill colonists, they take an ice age to fire another burst.
I would prefer to see turrets expanded upon. Starting with that crap which everyone begins with and through research, grow them into something that's very capable. I'd like to see the ability to "sacrifice" weapons to them. Say, put an M16 into a turret, giving it burst fire and increased accuracy and range over the stock turret (which would be equivalent to a pistol with better range). However the M16 is no longer available for use and removing it from the turret destroys it while downgrading the turret back to the basic form. They cost so much and are so fragile. The metal for two turrets could be used to create a much more effective defensive wall or to build a "waffle".
However, I'm not the game dev.
Everyone seems to have a problem with the "waffle", but I don't know why. If it makes the game easy peasy, it takes only a couple seconds for you to select sell and remove your waffle. I use a waffle because some form of crowd control is seriously needed once you've survived a couple months because the raiders will have a massive numbers advantage and that needs to be eliminated or else they can easily roll over you. With later raider waves typically having a large sniping division with 5-6 raiders equipped with M-24s against your 10-12 colonists not to mention the other 15 raiders with assorted pistols, M16s, grenades and molotovs, trying to mount a defense outside is also a way for raiders to easily roll over you.
Quote from: Goo Poni on November 19, 2013, 02:36:50 PMI don't see a problem with turrets removing all tactical elements from the game.
I've addressed this soooo many times I simply won't repeat myself at this point. It's a shot in the foot. No.
You say - what's the problem? If you don't like it, don't use it. Well, addressed that one also oh so many times. Allowing existence of god-hand mechanics is not giving player a choice, it's taking it away from him.
Quote from: Goo Poni on November 19, 2013, 02:36:50 PMEveryone seems to have a problem with the "waffle", but I don't know why. If it makes the game easy peasy, it takes only a couple seconds for you to select sell and remove your waffle.
That kind of mentality is a huge problem. Your whole post is based on that mentality - if you don't like it, don't use it. Welp, wrong. The whole game needs to be balanced around that cheesy mechanic you decide that should stay. And balancing around a cheesy mechanic that - as you say - makes it easy peasy is oh SO bad idea!
Gamers who don't want the game to be easy have no option. After all the game is already balanced for use of these kill-traps. So, you can forcibly handicap yourself - and have this awesomely BAD feeling that devs directed this game at children and it is not for you. Or you simply can't play it - because it was balanced around god-hand mechanics and without using them you simply loose.
What is left from the equation? If you remove god-hand mechanics, players who want the game hard can play on hard, players who want it on easy can play it on easy. If they stay? Everyone is forced to play on easy. Or not play, because handicapping oneself to be able to play enjoyable game is... not enjoyable.
It is simple. Turrets and blasting charges as a hand of god can NOT stay in game. And it's not even matter of personal preference. No-one is forcing anyone by removing them - you're forcing people by letting them stay!
And then comes the part where I don't understand the problem of the "don't like it, don't use it" mentality. It happens EVERYWHERE. Tons of games with people declaring this or that is bad or making artificial difficulty for themselves. And even in this game people do that. Can't make a mountain home, can't use steam power, can't use hydroponics. This game, and many others, are what the gamer CHOOSES to make of it and more options are better than none. Only the most truly game breaking of options should be eliminated. People are notoriously good at making their own fun so just give them the tools and don't tell them how to play just let them figure it out on their own.
*edit*
And as for them never figuring out another way to play because of the existence of tools I'd call you a fool. They will either be completely happy with what they have or they will seek out ways to make it better. I suppose I can't speak for everyone but before tossing a game away completely I look to see if I can change what's bugging me or if I'm missing something.
*edit2*
By truly game breaking I would include things like waffles and placing demo charges in front of a door. Though having a narrow corridor to walk down lined with explosives isn't exactly an illegitimate strategy nor would be having a turret kill zone, these are things people would do (and fall for) in real life and while no one wants a completely real game such things seem reasonable enough to me *shrug*
Did you... did you even... I know I addressed the learning curve problem few times, but this was long ago, like 3-4 posts earlier, but... did you read what I just wrote? Turrets and blasting charges are a god-hand mechanics, you use them you win, this is a game breaking mechanic! And if you have game breaking mechanic, players will never figure out on their own their own playstyles, because for 90% of them there will be no playstyles! You drop down 99/99 turret with funnel on turn one, and gg, bb. Then you throw down 999/999 blasting charges down, and gg, bb.
Most players won't be messing around with sticks and stones if you give them a nuke right out of the gate! And this has to be 100th time I try to explain it! This is a DISASTROUS game design, and you're going to loose A LOT of players to it!
You know what is the best game I ever played? Devil May Cry 3. Do you know what I did when I beat it? I played on harder and harder modes. For HUNDREDS of hours. Do you know what me and 99% of other players would do with it if it gave you full upgrades out of the gate? Threw it out of the window. As I did with Deadpool, by the way - and this is the "why try anything else when you can stunlock/kill everything right now" example. Why try anything else? It's boring and easy as it is, why try to find other most probably boring and easy ways to kill enemies?
Quote from: CmdrQuartz on November 19, 2013, 03:10:11 PMAnd as for them never figuring out another way to play because of the existence of tools I'd call you a fool.
Or you could actually answer the whole thing with learning curve and players sticking to known and working strategies. But I guess calling me a fool suits you better. This is the "your face looks stupid!" card. Great for social events and discussions. Well played >.<
I also appreciate you added that AFTER I replied to your post. Real classy of you :/
The game will continue to be refined and redesigned. The current batch of degenerate turret and blasting charge strategies will no longer effortlessly win every fight (though they will still be useful in some cases, of course).
Don't worry guys - the current state of affairs is only temporary. When the pre-alpha came out I probably had about 10-15 hours of decent playtest data from realistic players to work from, total. Since then, the community has put a thousand times more time into finding optimal ways to beat the game, especially in late-game scenarios past the 4 hour mark that I never tested at all. Nobody should be surprised that they found a couple of degenerate strategies. This is all part of the development process.
I also think it'd be cool if we could keep the discussions chilled-out all around. It's the Internet... and we all know how pointless Internet disagreements are.
Turrets become almost totally useless very quickly, at least in my experience. A couple of raiders armed with pistols can slag a turret by themselves with maybe one of them being killed, and after that they just become short-term bullet magnets. Especially when the raiders pack multiple M24s per attack, then it just becomes hilarious. I use one or two in the early game when colonists are in short supply, then scrap them and go with a nearly full-colonist defense aside from some minefields placed in spots I can't spare the soldiers to cover in a fight. If you're going for how long you can survive, by day 200 Cassandra Classic will be sending gargantuan (http://i.imgur.com/ih85wHC.jpg) mobs (http://i.imgur.com/aDOyWaX.jpg) of (http://i.imgur.com/SYKYJEt.jpg) raiders (http://i.imgur.com/cVL0BCf.jpg) armed with M16s and M24s that will break any colony in half, so I like to use a bunch of bombs to thin out the hordes before we clash.
When I first played this game, my first multi-raider attack had me going "Holy shit! This is amazing! They spread out and take cover tactically!" The enemy AI and cover system is something you won't see in many base-builders like this, for sure. I like it a lot, and my bases make good spots for pump shotguns and fistfights. Turrets, with their scrap cost, range that is useless against later raiders, and the amount you can fit in a space before they start blowing each other up, aren't terribly helpful. Bombs are something else, though, since it takes two to kill 10+ raiders for 70 scrap.
Quote from: Jacob/Lee on November 19, 2013, 04:02:25 PM
Turrets become almost totally useless very quickly, at least in my experience. A couple of raiders armed with pistols can slag a turret by themselves with maybe one of them being killed, and after that they just become short-term bullet magnets.
Everyone starts with this :) But you learn quickly how to use them with combination with terrain and cover to be real beastly. And that was the problem. My personal record was three turrets taking on ~18 raiders with only one of them blowing up.
But turrets NOT being removed, but not being a god-hand strategy as well? That should make everyone happy. I do know it does make me happy!
See this is what I think we on the turret side were trying to convey, we don't want an instant win button either, we just want a legitimate strategy revolving around turrets that takes time and effort to accomplish that will keep our precious colonists a bit more out of harms way, which stops them from seeing a lot of dead bodies a fairly bad happiness reducer. Of course there's bound to be "malfunctions" that cause trouble and stuff. I can't convey all my ideas here but I hope it can be realized that such strategies can be just as rewarding and interactive if done right.
Quote from: Galileus on November 19, 2013, 04:12:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob/Lee on November 19, 2013, 04:02:25 PM
Turrets become almost totally useless very quickly, at least in my experience. A couple of raiders armed with pistols can slag a turret by themselves with maybe one of them being killed, and after that they just become short-term bullet magnets.
Everyone starts with this :) But you learn quickly how to use them with combination with terrain and cover to be real beastly. And that was the problem. My personal record was three turrets taking on ~18 raiders with only one of them blowing up.
But turrets NOT being removed, but not being a god-hand strategy as well? That should make everyone happy. I do know it does make me happy!
Is that not tactical? Improving and optimising the defensive use of turrets? Improving and optimising a killzone instead of "oh shit, raiders are coming. You, go stand... erm... go stand over there and do something".
If you don't want any turrets, if you don't want a corridor of death, if you don't want a killzone, if you don't want "I win" blasting charges, then all you have left is people standing behind the buildings they call home or the rocky outcrop that sits a couple feet away. Against the small armies of raiders that typically outnumber them at least 2-1. Said army of raiders will just mindlessly charge you down and kill you with pistols because they have enough meat to make it work.
Quote from: CmdrQuartz on November 19, 2013, 04:38:44 PM
See this is what I think we on the turret side were trying to convey, we don't want an instant win button either, we just want a legitimate strategy revolving around turrets that takes time and effort to accomplish that will keep our precious colonists a bit more out of harms way, which stops them from seeing a lot of dead bodies a fairly bad happiness reducer. Of course there's bound to be "malfunctions" that cause trouble and stuff. I can't convey all my ideas here but I hope it can be realized that such strategies can be just as rewarding and interactive if done right.
You're just saying the designer shouldn't overreact and over-nerf a degenerate strategy, which is completely correct and good game design. Don't worry, I won't. Turrets are great, and they should be useful, but they shouldn't be everything.
I kinda liked my Turret console idea, if you have 3 guys you can only have 3 turrets firing. Doesn't really solve the problem but it does make turrets less effective, in the way of having less guys in the front lines. For late game turrets would be even more worst, if your people have good guns. Link to the Console idea http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=989.0
Maybe the turrets could jam, needing someone to fix it.
Plus if gun crafting is done maybe you need Gun parts/Higher grade metal. To fix it
Quote from: CmdrQuartz on November 19, 2013, 04:38:44 PM
See this is what I think we on the turret side were trying to convey, we don't want an instant win button either, we just want a legitimate strategy revolving around turrets that takes time and effort to accomplish that will keep our precious colonists a bit more out of harms way, which stops them from seeing a lot of dead bodies a fairly bad happiness reducer. Of course there's bound to be "malfunctions" that cause trouble and stuff. I can't convey all my ideas here but I hope it can be realized that such strategies can be just as rewarding and interactive if done right.
See, now, that's why I hate when people don't read my previous posts >.< That's not YOUR side. That's OUR side. I have nothing against turrets, I have everything against turrets as a god-hand mechanic. See, it's simply this mish-mash of terms like turret-problem actually describing problem that turrets are just a part of, and not it's core? Ugly. So I argue that turrets as they are now need to go, you argue that turrets in general don't need to go, actually we agree, just we don't know it.
(but then again, just to be fair, there was so much text-walling done on this topic, I can't blame ya you missed the point. Or I did. Darn, I would probably miss my own point reading it all again. Happens all the time)
Nothing against turrets that help you but don't win the game for you. All the way!
I vote that the turret should not be eliminated or involve the AI storyteller punishing you for having them.
It should count as an extra man with a pistol that cannot move and have the same health as a human.
The research upgrade should take it to an M-16 level.
It should not explode and take out nearby fighters and walls.
There should be a limit on the total number allowed or minimum spacing between multiple units.
It should have a cover bonus if behind sandbags.
A colonist should be able to fight right along side it and not have to worry about dying when it gets destroyed.
A drafted colonist should be able to repair it or disable it if it malfunctions or is about to explode.
Wow, this conversation got away from the OP quick
Quote from: Galileus on November 19, 2013, 06:17:30 PM
See, now, that's why I hate when people don't read my previous posts >.< That's not YOUR side. That's OUR side. I have nothing against turrets, I have everything against turrets as a god-hand mechanic. See, it's simply this mish-mash of terms like turret-problem actually describing problem that turrets are just a part of, and not it's core? Ugly. So I argue that turrets as they are now need to go, you argue that turrets in general don't need to go, actually we agree, just we don't know it.
(but then again, just to be fair, there was so much text-walling done on this topic, I can't blame ya you missed the point. Or I did. Darn, I would probably miss my own point reading it all again. Happens all the time)
Nothing against turrets that help you but don't win the game for you. All the way!
Ah well see I thought you kinda had it in for turrets, wanted them gone forever not just as they are now but whatever the case I'm glad we came to a peaceful conclusion. We shouldn't debate the matter any further until we see what Tynan can come up with.
Quote from: todofwar on November 19, 2013, 07:04:16 PM
Wow, this conversation got away from the OP quick
I think it maintained discussion about turrets and the balance of turrets. Oddly enough I think we're still divided on turret use because several of us have said they're useless while others claim they need to go away. I guess it just depends on what strategies you actually use because I'd agree with the original message of the game responding wayyyy too heavily to turrets because 1 turret can mean 3+ extra bad guys which a turret is definitely not worth. I've put them in darkness, behind sandbags, and abused the waffle mechanic and 4 turrets is no where near powerful enough to kill 12+ raiders, even with colonists helping from the side.
Quote from: CmdrQuartz on November 19, 2013, 07:30:48 PM
I think it maintained discussion about turrets and the balance of turrets. Oddly enough I think we're still divided on turret use because several of us have said they're useless while others claim they need to go away. I guess it just depends on what strategies you actually use because I'd agree with the original message of the game responding wayyyy too heavily to turrets because 1 turret can mean 3+ extra bad guys which a turret is definitely not worth. I've put them in darkness, behind sandbags, and abused the waffle mechanic and 4 turrets is no where near powerful enough to kill 12+ raiders, even with colonists helping from the side.
I've found 5-6 turrets, with colonists assisting, more than enough to deal with ~60 person raids. The key: blasting charges. If anything could use a nerfing, or even just a way for raiders to adapt to their presence, it's blasting charges.
I was trying to keep it on track with my last reply by suggesting some things and nothing else.
Quote from: CmdrQuartz on November 19, 2013, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: Galileus on November 19, 2013, 06:17:30 PM
See, now, that's why I hate when people don't read my previous posts >.< That's not YOUR side. That's OUR side. I have nothing against turrets, I have everything against turrets as a god-hand mechanic. See, it's simply this mish-mash of terms like turret-problem actually describing problem that turrets are just a part of, and not it's core? Ugly. So I argue that turrets as they are now need to go, you argue that turrets in general don't need to go, actually we agree, just we don't know it.
(but then again, just to be fair, there was so much text-walling done on this topic, I can't blame ya you missed the point. Or I did. Darn, I would probably miss my own point reading it all again. Happens all the time)
Nothing against turrets that help you but don't win the game for you. All the way!
Ah well see I thought you kinda had it in for turrets, wanted them gone forever not just as they are now but whatever the case I'm glad we came to a peaceful conclusion. We shouldn't debate the matter any further until we see what Tynan can come up with.
Quote from: todofwar on November 19, 2013, 07:04:16 PM
Wow, this conversation got away from the OP quick
I think it maintained discussion about turrets and the balance of turrets. Oddly enough I think we're still divided on turret use because several of us have said they're useless while others claim they need to go away. I guess it just depends on what strategies you actually use because I'd agree with the original message of the game responding wayyyy too heavily to turrets because 1 turret can mean 3+ extra bad guys which a turret is definitely not worth. I've put them in darkness, behind sandbags, and abused the waffle mechanic and 4 turrets is no where near powerful enough to kill 12+ raiders, even with colonists helping from the side.
I wasn't talking about turrets being balanced I was talking about the storyteller responding too aggressively to them. Turret balance in general is an oddly touchy subject, apparently.
Well that has something to do with balance, one way or another. Either turrets need to be stronger to warrant the response or the response needs to be toned down and yeah there seems to be some conflict over the exact right answer. Such things happen when people form opinions. No matter how strong or weak the turrets are I feel the raiders and storytellers need to use other cues for determining strength. I suggested before with seeing how quickly/slowly they are taken care of and how much damage they deal before routing to see how powerful the next wave is. This would take into account things like game changing events, like solar flares, colonists ability (or lack thereof) to use weapons, and player skill in handling the situation. Of course I have no idea if such a thing is even possible but it seems like a very fair system to go by.
Tbh, I don't use turrets, simply because they are too much effort, what with how easy they are to destroy and how they explode when they are destroyed (I don't really use blasting charges either); whenever raiders come I assemble my colonists at the end of a wide tunnel, behind a couple of sandbags, and let them slaughter the incoming raiders; since there is only one piece of cover for the raiders to hide behind all but the one raider fortunate enough to grab that cover die quickly and when there is just one left it becomes easy to flush them out. (At this point the prototype became rather boring and I stopped playing it; there wasn't any challenge anymore)
Quote from: Tynan on November 19, 2013, 04:51:23 PM
You're just saying the designer shouldn't overreact and over-nerf a degenerate strategy, which is completely correct and good game design. Don't worry, I won't. Turrets are great, and they should be useful, but they shouldn't be everything.
Now, there's the kicker. What if they could be everything? When some players play Team Fortress 2, they sometimes will play as a single character or maybe just a few different characters. Each character has its benefits and its flaws, but a sufficiently skilled player would be capable of using only a single character to take on every other situation they find themselves in. Personally, I choose the spy, and in matches that aren't sufficiently challenging, I decide to stop using cloak to add a level of difficulty to the game.
The end product should have a proper enough balancing of different playstyles that players that want to play with a particular playstyle can. If someone wants to just build a base and maintain the internal economy, they should have the options available to focus entirely on the economy and, with sufficient skill, be able to fend off enemies and stave off internal strife with their economy management abilities alone. If someone wants to play the commander of the elite Reynold's Rangers and battle their way to victory, an astute enough commander should have enough tools available to them to allow for one-sided victories in which none of the colonists die.
My particular playstyle is that of the Joker, where I do things just for the lulz. I've gotten good enough at TF2 spy that I assault pyros head-on without cloak and kill them more than half the time. Starcraft SCVs are a viable combat soldier for me whenever I play a match, and I've found that flanking RimWorld raiders, rushing them, then punching them to death is extremely fun for me. Occasionally, I pause the game, then play "Amok Time" in the background before the final push.
Each player is different, but the best game is one in which each player, with sufficient ability, can carve out their own niche into the game, regardless of how the game is "meant" to be played, either by design or by what the players intend to get out of the game.
Quote from: murlocdummy on November 20, 2013, 12:26:11 AMNow, there's the kicker. What if they could be everything? (...) The end product should have a proper enough balancing of different playstyles that players that want to play with a particular playstyle can. If someone wants to just build a base and maintain the internal economy, they should have the options available to focus entirely on the economy and, with sufficient skill, be able to fend off enemies and stave off internal strife with their economy management abilities alone.
You don't <<design>> it that way. If you design turrets to be a possible hand of god mechanic, you run head-on into all these problems I mentioned earlier. A lot. And as is, it can simply be done by lowering difficulty - you play on easy raiders, turrets are everything. Easy, simple and does not put you in this weird balancing problem, where you can very easily screw the game for a lot of people.
I would just like more defense options. The way it stands just now, I feel limited with the options I currently have.
Turrets are too expensive for their low power. Blasting charges are OP when used correctly.
Different types of turrets would be nice. Or traps would also be a great addition.
I stopped using them for defense after I noticed raiders like to attack them first, I have a bunch of shooting points that have doors on both sides for protection and only spot I have turrets open to the world is behind them to deal with the one raider that just runs past his comrades and into the heart of my colony. I'm currently experimenting with hiding them in walls and selling parts of the walls so they can shoot but I only use it against fleeing enemies because they explode.
I don't think they should be removed, the fact that they explode is enough to put me off of using them solely for defense. In fact I've found that they die much faster then any of my colonists. With the way the AI is you need colonists shooting, turrets are targeted first and seem to be hit twice as much as colonists. They are more of an auxiliary force.
I admit I use blasting charges but at most it only kills 7 of 20 raiders and does me the favor of destroying some weapons. I don't coat the field in them because I limit myself to that.
Some traps on the other hand would be nice, like a turret that stuns a single attacker for a couple seconds and does some minor damage.
There is one part I think turrets need an improvement, the ability to manually select a target for them. The ones protecting the front doors of my colony should shoot the Muffalo that is trying to break the door down...
Each raid I face I am still worried about colonists, every three or so I lose one and with my colonists killing every raider that falls down I will eventually run out of fighters.
Quote from: Galileus on November 20, 2013, 01:48:18 AM
You don't <<design>> it that way. If you design turrets to be a possible hand of god mechanic, you run head-on into all these problems I mentioned earlier. A lot. And as is, it can simply be done by lowering difficulty - you play on easy raiders, turrets are everything. Easy, simple and does not put you in this weird balancing problem, where you can very easily screw the game for a lot of people.
If you design anything to become a God's Hand, it'll cause severe problems. The engie broke Team Fortress 2 for a while. The zergrush was the gamebreaker for Starcraft, and the noob tube was one of the major problems with Call of Duty 4. All of them were eventually modified, but none of them outright removed in an attempt to make the games "balanced". For the most part, new elements were added into the games in order to allow players access to better methods of play. Spies got sappers, zergs became more susceptible to artillery, and just about anyone with the right gun can take out assaulting noobs.
In the early parts of a game's development, balancing issues are best solved by adding more elements to a fledgling game in order to increase the content potential. Things like more and different kinds of turrets, different kinds of attacking units or hostile animals, or improved enemy AI help to not only solve the initial problem at hand, but also serve to improve the overall ability of a game to deliver what particular audience segments want. At some point, new God's Hands will happen, and those issues will need to be addressed as they happen. I fully expect an equipment system to have items that will initially lead to an obvious, degenerate loadout that nobody would deny as the best possible equipment for their characters. Adding more kinds of raiders will lead to cherry picking new captures for the best ones and killing off the rest, and having new happiness-inducing structures will lead to very specific room designs to maximize the effect of them.
Currently, Tynan is working on music. This will help the game in every aspect by affecting the mood of any given moment the game has to offer. At some point, the more important questions of what kind of staffing Ludeon Studios is going to need, as well as a means of expanding game content will have to be addressed. Having an overall better look, feel, and sound to the game will definitely help, but after many players reach the minimum amount of sensory stimulation from the game's artistic design, it starts to become little more than background noise and clutter that has nothing to do with the actual gameplay.
The most important issue right now shouldn't be about what's immediately in front of us, but what's going to happen in the future.
Quote from: murlocdummy on November 20, 2013, 11:37:39 PM
Currently, Tynan is working on music.
He is? Dang. Music takes up so much time, and offer so little in regard to the game...
Quote from: murlocdummy on November 20, 2013, 11:37:39 PM
This will help the game in every aspect by affecting the mood of any given moment the game has to offer.
Screw mood if the balance is off and the story tellers run out of ideas besides: "lets send more raiders this time around"
:'(
Quote from: Merry76 on November 21, 2013, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: murlocdummy on November 20, 2013, 11:37:39 PM
Currently, Tynan is working on music.
He is? Dang. Music takes up so much time, and offer so little in regard to the game...
Quote from: murlocdummy on November 20, 2013, 11:37:39 PM
This will help the game in every aspect by affecting the mood of any given moment the game has to offer.
Screw mood if the balance is off and the story tellers run out of ideas besides: "lets send more raiders this time around"
:'(
Of all people you should be used to this aspect of early alpha development! :P The parts you want to be improved are not always a development priority... Besides Tynan isn't making the music himself, so I can't imagine it'll take too much of his personal time, besides what it takes to vet/approve, and to implement it into the game (presumably it will be somewhat context sensitive?).
Quote from: Stickle on November 21, 2013, 12:01:04 PM
Of all people you should be used to this aspect of early alpha development! :P The parts you want to be improved are not always a development priority... Besides Tynan isn't making the music himself, so I can't imagine it'll take too much of his personal time, besides what it takes to vet/approve, and to implement it into the game (presumably it will be somewhat context sensitive?).
Yeah I know.
But the last patch for Rimworld was on the 7th, and when I read that Tynan was doing music now, I went into Nerd shock.
It was "waiting for something awesome, then getting sfx, more sfx, skulls on spikes&wall torches and then a fix for said torches for one and half a month" all over again. I cried a bit inside :'(
Quote from: Merry76 on November 21, 2013, 01:39:31 PM
Yeah I know.
But the last patch for Rimworld was on the 7th, and when I read that Tynan was doing music now, I went into Nerd shock.
It was "waiting for something awesome, then getting sfx, more sfx, skulls on spikes&wall torches and then a fix for said torches for one and half a month" all over again. I cried a bit inside :'(
I don't see why Tynan working on music is a bad thing. Yes, I did say that adding more artwork and music will eventually become "clutter that has nothing to do with the actual gameplay", but the kind of music engine that he's working on is going to change gameplay for the better.
I also don't see why having someone else compose music won't require Tynan to take time to implement it. Even if the new music system were simplified somehow, it would still require setting up musical cue events in Cassandra, and possibly expanding it towards random games, as well.
Quote from: murlocdummy on November 22, 2013, 01:03:09 AM
I also don't see why having someone else compose music won't require Tynan to take time to implement it. Even if the new music system were simplified somehow, it would still require setting up musical cue events in Cassandra, and possibly expanding it towards random games, as well.
I might be speaking out of my ass, but I'm under the impression that putting together a music system, cues and all, is not quite as time-consuming as actually composing music. I don't expect it's something most programmers could whip up (well) in an hour, but I doubt it'd take weeks, either.
Personally I'm excited for music, set the atmosphere a little.
Honestly turrets were never meant to be the bulk of your defense, just a supplement. Turrets are still no match for a good strong defense force and a well thought out defense zone.
or blasting charge spam... 2 blasting charges and wipe out the entire raiding force...
Quote from: Stickle on November 22, 2013, 01:05:46 AM
I might be speaking out of my ass, but I'm under the impression that putting together a music system, cues and all, is not quite as time-consuming as actually composing music. I don't expect it's something most programmers could whip up (well) in an hour, but I doubt it'd take weeks, either.
As said previously, setting up the cue system is going to be a real hassle. It needs to be set up for every event that happens, as well as setting up a multi-track system where necessary. Bethesda games may have an extraordinarily cheap one-event, one-song system, but in real games, the music is based off of multiple variables and requires a rather long and convoluted system to run it with. If some elite codeslinger could pull one out of his ass in only a few days, there'd be alot of people who'd want to hire him. Either that, or the game project is so ridiculously small that you only have a few possible events to code for.