Ludeon Forums

RimWorld => Ideas => Topic started by: Granitecosmos on November 30, 2017, 07:08:20 PM

Title: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Granitecosmos on November 30, 2017, 07:08:20 PM
Before we start we have to define what a killbox is. So let's have a look at what is absolutely necessary to make a killbox; the very elements a killbox can't function without. These are:
Walls are obvious; they present a barrier. This is fine, this is pretty much their purpose.
Fortifications are the way the game was meant to be played. Smart players use cover. Nothing unusual.
Now, the problem is funneling enemies. Most killboxes even put items like stone chunks into these entrances so the enemies can't even stop to have a chance to fire back. Players can do this because they know the raiders will certainly have to pass that area since there is no other way into the colony.

But this is just bad. This eliminates almost all challenge from combat. Pair it up with a mountain base and you have a colony that is untouchable for anything except infestations. Sieges? Raids dropping on top of base? Tornados? Meteors? Too bad, overhead mountains solve those. Sappers? Rare sight and good luck mining through half the mountain if you want to skip the killbox anyway. This is why devs have tried to do at least something with them in the past. But so far everything has failed or was just a minor success; only forcing a slight change instead of complete elimination.

Every killbox relies on funneling enemies into one or a few smaller areas. Take that away and the killbox simply becomes a line of fortifications; which is completely acceptable to have.

How to stop enemies from getting funneled into a deathzone? First we have to understand that right now the game has no real way to determine the location of such a killzone to be able to avoid it. Therefore we need such a system.

How to measure a killzone? Why, that's easy; by kills, of course! Well, by "downs", to be more precise. The game already can track a pawn being downed or killed. All we need is to give this yet another value and assign it to the map. This is where my idea comes in. Let's add a new value to every cell on the game map. Let's call this value "heat" for now and should be zero by default, as well as zero for minimum value too. For performance reasons the game should keep track of the cells having non-zero heat to prevent the game from trying to update all the tiles all the time. Now, here's the trick: when an enemy dies or gets downed, the game adds a certain amount of heat to that cell and optionally to other cells around that cell within a certain radius (could even tweak it to give less heat the further away the tile is from the center of the radius). Now, when the other enemies try to path towards the colony this heat value will be added to that certain tile's pathfinding cost. Add in an extra bit of code that effectively changes pathing cost to infinite after a certain amount of heat is reached on the tile and we're golden.

Now, obviously just doing this would result in all the map tiles becoming impassable after a long time. So let's add a refresh mechanism that fires every day (much like the XP cap reset) that removes a certain flat number (not percentage!) of heat from all tiles that have heat. This is where performance might be a problem and why the game should have a list of tiles that have non-zero heat so the game can just skip the other cells.

What this does is making the raiders a bit more intelligent. When they see the 5th raider die in front of them at the very same area they will actually act smart and realize it might not be that good of an idea to go that way after all. They might decide to bash on the walls to get inside. Optionally include some code to allow any raider to mine walls if they can't find any other way inside the colony (like sappers do). This "heat map" layer can be developed further; maybe disable it for animals since they aren't that intelligent or even make it faction-specific so the angry tribals don't know about the twelve pirates who got massacred around a corner (although making it faction-specific would have far greater impact on game performance).

Now, obviously this wouldn't just affect killboxes. This would also affect natural chokepoints and fortification lines as well. But let's be honest, the enemies are mostly either humans or mechanoids. Both are intelligent and would learn from their mistakes, one way or another. If you've killed the previous raid by utilizing a chokepoint they'll try going around it. If you're gunning them down from your heavily fortified defense positions they'll find other ways inside. The enemies are supposed to be intelligent, how about we make them act like that for once?

Just to state the obvious, this wouldn't completely eliminate killboxes. They could still score a few kills if enough time has passed since the last raid. But this could present a change since raiders would just turn their backs on a killbox after suffering some casualties and find or make a new entry. This could even punish those mountain bases by effectively turning every raid into a sapper raid if they use a funneling killbox as their only defense. Overall this could make raids much more dynamic, allowing them to change the angle of attack during the raid based on rough performance.

This idea might or might not have been brought up before. I honestly don't know. Oh well. So, what's everyone's thoughts?
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: XeoNovaDan on November 30, 2017, 07:21:36 PM
Four words: I'm all for this.

The biggest issue that this would present is, as you mentioned, possible performance implications and maybe the complexity to implement, but it'll definitely be a viable fix to an age-old exploit. It'll encourage players to invest in multiple defence points or otherwise engage in standard field combat where the playing field is a bit more level, which will also add a nice bit of challenge.

On that note, maybe difficulty could also multiply these map values, which simulates raiders on higher difficulties being smarter. Raiders using smart tactics could also be affected more by these heat values than your ordinary raid, again putting that bit of emphasis on.

I hope this does get in!
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Spdskatr on November 30, 2017, 07:34:09 PM
Great idea actually.

Perhaps this way decrease the raid size as well so non-killbox players can play properly without being outnumbered 3 to 1.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Yoshida Keiji on December 01, 2017, 04:08:13 AM
+1

Tynan don't launch A18 to public until this is implemented, otherwise RW will look as a too cheesy game to potential new players.

Quote from: Spdskatr on November 30, 2017, 07:34:09 PM
Great idea actually.

Perhaps this way decrease the raid size as well so non-killbox players can play properly without being outnumbered 3 to 1.

No, why? I have never ever not even once built a killbox and still smash all raids already.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: lancar on December 01, 2017, 05:08:14 AM
I really like this idea.
The only problem with it is when i envision all the massed-body raids that can simply overpower any defense that ISN'T a killbox.
To adress that, i suggest that the heat values of a all tiles on a map be modified by a "confidence" factor of the raid. A large army of people will naturally be more confident when attacking than a small one, after all, so the chances of them thinking "to hell with it, we'll just overpower them with numbers! Forward!" is a lot higher than a small  precision raid using special tactics, and thus should be more vulnerable to a killbox.

Also, some additional variety of defensive buildings would make sense to have so that it gets more feasable to defend none-chokepoint areas.
It doesn't have to be anything major, but think of things like large spotlights that lower the accuracy of pawns facing it, or barbed wire that're cheap to build a lot of and will scratch and slow enemies trying to cross without offering any cover like rocks and sandbags do. Neither are deadly, but help deny area and give advantages to the defender.

I know this stuff is (probably) in mods, but if the anti-killbox heatmap becomes a thing to make combat have more depth, imho more depth is needed in the defense department as well so more players can actually survive the higher difficulties without them.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: SpaceDorf on December 01, 2017, 05:47:20 AM
I like the Idea very much. It gives actual brains to the attackers.

But I think every faction should have their own "heat map" and "plan" their raids accordingly.
Also the map should get fuzzy over time, when you change your base layout or no raiders return home to update the map.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Bolgfred on December 01, 2017, 06:43:14 AM
I don't know if i want raiders to destroy my walls everytime they feel threatened.
This might end in a very annoying fighting, which puts you more into hunting those skunky dudes, who are digging through your base.

I actually like the idea of learning. Same like traps, are remembered by raiders, dangerous spots should be remembered.
Raiders behaviour could split in a third behaviour. Now we have attacking and fleeding. I'd split that into scout, fight, flee:
When they arrive on the map, theyre all in a scouting mode, meaning they head for player structure, looking for things to kill or steal, do not shot on sight(they gather first and attack then). When somebody dies, they react and change tactics and direction.
When they get attacked a lot, or they did find a valuable treasure, they switch to battle mode. Now they attack offensivley, destroy walls and furniture, set fire and steal things.


Beyond all that, I'd really love to see another behaviour I mentioned already in another thread:
Whenever raider feel like they cannot attack a base effectively, one raider leaves the map. After he leaves 1-3 mortar shells are launched from off map, attacking outer walls.
When the attacking situation has changed, they attack, else another one leaves, up until 50% have left. If there's still no effect, they surrender or attack despite their chances.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Jibbles on December 05, 2017, 12:56:41 PM
I'm all for making AI smarter.  Though I do question the outcome if this was implemented.  Raids may split up which will require even less firepower to take them down.  Throwing in heat spots like that may produce funky routes as well.  Not downing the idea though cause I think it would be more interesting than what we have now.

For me, I think part of it is lack of diversity in A raid.  A blob of raiders is running towards your base.  A siege is a blob attacking away from your base.  Same issues lies with mechs.  I think it would be more interesting if they had a way to lure you away from your base (more than just laying down a mortar) while also having some attack your base simultaneously.  It puts you on the spot on what you need to tackle down first while also making it pretty expensive or challenging to set killboxes or defenses on entire map.  Biomes such as swamp may have a bigger impact on your decisions as well.

Adding more raider types such as group of snipers, group of pyros etc would be neat IMO
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Third_Of_Five on December 05, 2017, 01:06:10 PM
This does make sense.

I know it will probably be a bit challenging to implement and there will probably be a few people saying that this is nerfing the game, but it doesn't make sense for a gang of raiders to essentially willingly march to their deaths.

+1 from me
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: PatrykSzczescie on December 09, 2017, 05:41:28 AM
I've been thinking about the same idea. Let's make AI smarter, if they were told their buddies died while attacking a base in a certain place, their common sense would say to find another way.

Heat value might be reduced over the next raids rather than time. Also, during implementing keep in mind the heat value won't increase if already downed colonist dies. Apart from these, the idea is great.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Wanderer_joins on December 10, 2017, 08:32:49 AM
Or simply lower the path cost of walls for raiders. Keep different raids but have them all follow a sapper-like path. It's already roughly what you get when you play an open colony.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: patoka on December 10, 2017, 04:10:44 PM
i am no it person but what you're saying makes quite a bit of sense. i'd much rather have all this be part of RimWorld's code than if my pets were incestuous or not...

but honestly i dont quite think the funnelling part is the most detrimental part of killboxes. personally, i have experimented with some just to try it out but i always came to the conclusion that anything even remotely similar to a killbox is straight up cheating. sure, technically it isnt, but the game isnt done yet so you could call it bug/glitch abuse.

anyway. what i think is the most detrimental part of killboxes is that they are usually fully mechanized. worst case scenario you need to replace some broken down guns and fix some doors and walls, but you never risk a head brainshot on one of your pawns, which in my opinion is the heart of the game. your colonists.

you might be right about your points, addingg intelligence and all. and i might be the regressive person i really dont want to be, but quite honestly i believe the autoturrets are not only overpowered but even if they were weaker they just ruin the game by their mere existance. i guess a step between autoturrets and sending your pawns into battle are pets bred for war, because it is so easy to reproduce an army of boars, wargs or dogs, but even muffalo if you want to profit from the super productive haygrass as their food.

i have looked at a number of killboxes and by far most are useless if you cant build autoturrets anymore. if you still have to send your pawns to actually kill of the enemy, i believe it is fair play, even if they are funneled and your units are dug in. only very few, the most extreme ones dont completel rely on actual shots getting fired. there, it is a combination of a labyrinth, many boulders in the way, hiding your base far off the map edge and the raiders starving/going crazy because of the long, corpse infested walk to the battlefield.

much less of a problem in my opinion are deadfall trap, but they are kinda useless in comparison to a proper fortification for the same cost. it is funny to put them in an area of the map where most traders like to go to and see them die there over and over without you starting a war. but that is a different bug abuse.

lastly i wanted to say that in my experience this game is still too heavily reliant on conventional projectile weapons. it might be realistic that way, but that is also what makes autoturrers so strong. either implement enemies/clothing that hides your/the enemy's heat signature from the guns or give the end game units better armor against bullets. arguably charge rifles are worse than other guns as of now, so you could make that kind of ammo more efficient against the strongest enemies, so that people have a reason to use pawns even if they had a killbox to kill the raiders. or maybe implement power fists since power armor already exists. power fists should be exellent at dealing a lot of damage to any enemy's head for example.


all in all, you might be right in that your idea would solve the problem better in more cases, but mine would be much easier to implement, because we've been modding very similar things for years now and the effects are well known. yours on the other hand might be hard to code, require a whole new alpha/beta and slow the game down even more once you have 10 or more pawns and play on high difficulties with numerous enemies each raid
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: kubolek01 on December 10, 2017, 04:34:29 PM
Killbox=fear of enemies.
Sandbags=true fight with a small advantage.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Eddlm on December 21, 2017, 08:59:43 PM
Newbie with no experience with killboxes coming through.

Quote from: Granitecosmos on November 30, 2017, 07:08:20 PM
How to measure a killzone? Why, that's easy; by kills, of course! Well, by "downs", to be more precise. The game already can track a pawn being downed or killed. All we need is to give this yet another value and assign it to the map. This is where my idea comes in. Let's add a new value to every cell on the game map. Let's call this value "heat" for now and should be zero by default, as well as zero for minimum value too. For performance reasons the game should keep track of the cells having non-zero heat to prevent the game from trying to update all the tiles all the time. (...)

You would be adding an entirely new value to every single cell of the game, that you would just use a few times per raid or may not even get to use ever (no killbox designed). That's a very unbalanced set-use ratio.

I on the contrary would just set a new variable per raid, a 2D vector containing the place where the last raider died or got downed. When a new raider dies compare distances and timeframe. If both (time of death and location) are too close to each other, start getting suspicious.

After three or so raiders die this way, make the rest rethink their tactics. Either hang around waiting for you to come out of your bunker,  call in for a Siege, or just give up and next time use drop pods.

To make sure the game gets it right you could check that the raiders actually die from a player enemy and not a random Manhunter, or an event from Sometimes Raids Go Wrong.

I'd like the concept of Raiders capable of learning. Next time they could focus on armor and/or one hit-kill weapons to try and break your killbox quickly. Maybe cycle through a few different loadouts or AI sets.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Granitecosmos on December 22, 2017, 05:17:26 AM
Quote from: Eddlm on December 21, 2017, 08:59:43 PM
You would be adding an entirely new value to every single cell of the game, that you would just use a few times per raid or may not even get to use ever (no killbox designed). That's a very unbalanced set-use ratio.

Quote from: Granitecosmos on November 30, 2017, 07:08:20 PM
Let's add a new value to every cell on the game map. Let's call this value "heat" for now and should be zero by default, as well as zero for minimum value too. For performance reasons the game should keep track of the cells having non-zero heat to prevent the game from trying to update all the tiles all the time.

...

This is where performance might be a problem and why the game should have a list of tiles that have non-zero heat so the game can just skip the other cells.

Here's how it would work:

The beauty of the system is that it only updates tiles that need to be updated.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Shurp on December 22, 2017, 05:13:43 PM
I do like this idea, because it creates an opportunity for flexible responses by the player.  Say your killbox is killing lots of raiders, so they start attacking at another point.  Well, you can move all your turrets and other defenses over there and have a new killbox.  Until they figure that out and start going at another point.  And so on.  It forces the player to think, "hmmm, where might they attack next?" and gives him the opportunity to respond in advance.

Contrast this with how sappers behave.  As soon as you think they're going to attack at a particular spot and you put your defenses there, they nearly immediately switch targets.  Trying to anticipate them fails because they always know what you've done.

Giving the AI *limited* information is a much better idea than compete information... and this mechanic does sound very easy to implement.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: crystal6tak on May 13, 2018, 07:16:22 AM
First time posting here, don't know if reviving old threads like this is ok.

I like this idea! Although the heatmap system could be simplified to be done without adding an entirely new system.

Just put an invisible 3x3 wall where an enemy down/dies. These walls don't actually block anything and is only taken into path calculation by enemy AI's. I'm assuming enemy AI's already take into account obstacle levels when path finding. They'll break down a wooden door when the base is surrounded by plasteel walls. So I'm assuming they do take into account the different levels of hardness between wood, slate, plasteel, etc.

Use this pre-existing system, give these invisible walls hardness (or whatever the game code named this variable). When a raider dies/downs, a 3x3 invisible wall spawns there, but with a very low hardness (lower than wood). When another 3x3 invisible wall spawns and overlaps a previous 3x3 invisible wall. The overlapped walls increases in hardness. Eventually the killbox entrance will be blocked off by invisible walls with hardness level much higher than plasteel so the raiders will stop pathing through there.

Then, just to keep the realism, make the invisible walls faction specific like the OP mentioned. Shouldn't be taxing to the system as the game just has to unload and load some walls depending on the faction of the raid.

I prefer what PatrykSzczescie said, instead of reducing the heat levels over time, do it after each raid. So similarly, just lower the hardness of each wall after the end of each faction specific raid.

Only issue I see with this is the enemy might start using these invisible wall as cover, hopefully the game code is flexible enough it can mark these walls to not be used as cover without too much effort from the dev.

I'm currently still playing my first colony (I'm on the 9th year already though). The very first defense system I setupped was essentially a killbox, and I didn't even know killbox was a thing! Lol.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Tober6fire on May 13, 2018, 10:47:54 PM
I am all for making the AI smarter but maybe if we do implement these ideas not all AI's have to be this smart depending on the character traits. Such as a raider with high intelligence level would probably be thinking how to infiltrate a base better how to implement that into this game is maybe add some of these functions of recognizing were to go and were to not go for some pawns but not all of them or all raiders would be able to take advantage of you which is not exactly fun when you are trying to build a civilization a two or three raiders easily raider your early base since you were not prepared.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: jasiek0202 on May 14, 2018, 05:53:22 AM
I couldn't agree more - even though I love cowering behind my impenetrable killbox, it is a clutch that the game would be better off without. The mechanics sound solid and they could also be used to make different raiders act differently - for example tribal raids could pay less attention to heat as they charge in a battle frenzy, while those horrible nasty mechanoids avoid kill boxes and attack you where you are the weakest
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Perq on May 14, 2018, 08:36:51 AM
Quote from: Bolgfred on December 01, 2017, 06:43:14 AM
I don't know if i want raiders to destroy my walls everytime they feel threatened.
This might end in a very annoying fighting, which puts you more into hunting those skunky dudes, who are digging through your base.

I actually like the idea of learning. Same like traps, are remembered by raiders, dangerous spots should be remembered.
Raiders behaviour could split in a third behaviour. Now we have attacking and fleeding. I'd split that into scout, fight, flee:
When they arrive on the map, theyre all in a scouting mode, meaning they head for player structure, looking for things to kill or steal, do not shot on sight(they gather first and attack then). When somebody dies, they react and change tactics and direction.
When they get attacked a lot, or they did find a valuable treasure, they switch to battle mode. Now they attack offensivley, destroy walls and furniture, set fire and steal things.


Beyond all that, I'd really love to see another behaviour I mentioned already in another thread:
Whenever raider feel like they cannot attack a base effectively, one raider leaves the map. After he leaves 1-3 mortar shells are launched from off map, attacking outer walls.
When the attacking situation has changed, they attack, else another one leaves, up until 50% have left. If there's still no effect, they surrender or attack despite their chances.

1. That is the point - if they cannot attack from front, they should dig around. Think what you'd do. Would you go front and get killed, or group up in one spot and start digging your way in?
Yes, this will mean you'd have to leave your fort and fight them.
2. Errrr, what? Why would they leave if they are supposed to siege you? You win because they don't feel like attacking you? Lol. Also - mountain base. Mortars do nothing.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Weyrling on May 23, 2018, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Perq on May 14, 2018, 08:36:51 AM
2. Errrr, what? Why would they leave if they are supposed to siege you? You win because they don't feel like attacking you? Lol. Also - mountain base. Mortars do nothing.
Why would they attack if they're basically guaranteed to die?
I'm all for the AI being smarter, but part of that should be the ability to retreat in the face of overwhelming odds.


Assuming that some kind of 'heat map' was generated, I would prefer that the AI set up their own fortifications right outside your base and did a proper siege instead of just mortaring you.

IE, instead of setting up mortars near the edge of the map they instead use the heat map and set up fortifications relatively close to your base, preferably within line of sight to a path leading into your base (or whatever other method they use to generate a path to target things).

After they set up this fort they could call in reinforcements and supplies at which point you'd get sappers and mortars and such on top of the raiding force.

You would have to either kill off enough of them to force a retreat or they would escalate.
This would force players to bribe the raiders to leave, go out and murder people, or set up a sufficiently epic trap that forces a retreat in one go (which killboxes generally don't do in my experience).
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Alenerel on May 26, 2018, 06:54:35 AM
The problem with removing killboxes is that you WILL get overwhelmed, even if you build efficiently.

If you want a challenge its as easy as not building an killbox. I want challenges, but not only in the meaning of overwhelming raids... There can be other type of challenges too.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: crystal6tak on May 26, 2018, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: Alenerel on May 26, 2018, 06:54:35 AM
The problem with removing killboxes is that you WILL get overwhelmed, even if you build efficiently.

If you want a challenge its as easy as not building an killbox. I want challenges, but not only in the meaning of overwhelming raids... There can be other type of challenges too.
Hence the reason to find a solution to make kill boxes less effective. We don't want a brute force solution (sending more units per raid) to counter killbox as that'll make it too overwhelming for non-killbox users.

On the other hand, if we balance the difficulty according to non-killbox users, it'll be too easy for killbox users.

Simply telling the player to not build killbox as a solution is just... too artifical. Especially if it's such a general progression of your colony. The most logical structure of a colony is to build a wall around your base, and have an entrance, which you will likely heavily guard, and... oh oops, you just built a kill box.

Tweaking what makes kill box so effective is the ideal solution. Building kill box will still be a thing (e.g. for slaughtering manhunting packs) but it won't be a be-all solution for enemy attacks.

Making the player build other types of defenses BECAUSE they're just as effective will make the gameplay feel more organic. Feeling challenged because the game is actually challenging is much more organic than feeling challenged because you're limiting yourself.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Injured Muffalo on May 26, 2018, 03:07:03 PM
RimWorld does provide tools for killboxes. I don't use them, but the lack of real defensive choices means you're going to be fighting "in the streets" without them.

So...I think pathfinding is the issue. The super long corridors shouldn't be seen as a sneaky way in by the attacker. They need to compromise between distance traveled and an open path.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Alenerel on May 27, 2018, 04:53:26 AM
Quote from: crystal6tak on May 26, 2018, 12:23:32 PM
On the other hand, if we balance the difficulty according to non-killbox users, it'll be too easy for killbox users.

Its already too easy for killbox players...

About what you say about making AI more smart. Im ok if they get nerfed in numbers, but if their current numbers are made smarter then its just impossible.

To aid to this eradicate the killbox mission, some new defenses would also help, like manned turrets.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: tmo97 on May 28, 2018, 01:53:14 PM
there you go again wanting to change the entire game to accord to your preferred playstyle.

kill killboxes means change the way the game is played until killboxes are a bad option.
that's preference. how about you suggest changes that don't make something you hate smaller.

"Its already too easy for killbox players..."
This forum is dividing politically into two groups.
1. people who wanna constantly make this game rougher without regard to casuals
2. casuals who wanna ignore the higher difficulties

If you're gonna talk like that, it means you're demonizing and separating them from you.
They're already a 'them'. He's a filthy thisthatter because his preference is to thisthat, and thisthatters have it too easy.

The intuitive way to understand what is wrong with calling someone a thisthatter is to replace it with "jew" or "welfare receiver".

Stop saying "killbox users" and group labeling and then building on top of it.
There's no black people. There's that guy and his skin happens to be black, and my skin is less black. Once there's black people and you disidentify with being black, tada, you've now divided people into half. That's a common political tactic to get what you want. It's manipulative.

Fyi I don't care that this might be off-topic; stop trying to eradicate one type of player, and stop unequally appealing to target groups. Stop trying to remove killboxes, stop trying to force people to play a certain way. If you know killboxes are bad, don't use them. If you find some other easy to exploit mechanism in the game, are you gonna kill that too? Are you an anti-exploit person? Am I going to have to put you into a category to demonstrate my point now?
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Yoshida Keiji on May 29, 2018, 10:03:43 AM
The Killbox is just one problem from a much larger issue that is: Feedback between player base/community and Ludeon Studios.

The preference to use a killbox is taken by weak players, who basically will be submitting lots of complains to "dumb down" the difficulty. This is a big problem for any decent gamer.

* A weak player forgets his pawns scattered across the whole map in all directions, and complains/request "Auto-Undraft". Tynan listens to them and now all decent players lose character control.

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=40938.msg406201#msg406201

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=18835.0


* A weak player lays dozens of blueprints all over the map and complains about constructors delay. Tynan listens to them and now all decent players are affected by losing the "Repair" job on the work tab.

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=35272.msg361154#msg361154


* Weak players get a Tornado and already start complaining because it spawned on top of their base and over a pawn or two, while Tornados can also spawns far away most of the time. Again, weak players complain and now decent players are left without natural disasters which was making the game more realistic.


* The problem with killboxes is that casuals who "depend" on them should be selecting "Base Builder" difficulty or start with the tutorial. But instead...they want to jump to high tier difficulties.


The heat map to make AI more challenging is very much needed because there is LITERALLY no difference between Rough - Intense - Extreme except for the enemy numbers. The heat map to Kill the Killboxes could easily be set to apply to Intense & Extreme difficulties only and leaving the easier settings for the casuals. This way the entire community wins.

Thing is...when you read that a killbox player requests a rifle that can shoot 100 tiles away... you know there is a problem...
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Alenerel on May 29, 2018, 03:32:08 PM
So Im trying to play without a killbox and... Its just too hard to build the defenses without constantly thinking "okay, i cannot do this otherwise these are killboxes". Its just natural trying to corner the enemy or at least funnel them into, if not a 1 tile corridor, at least to a single flank where you can deal with them instead of leaving your butt surrounded like an idiot.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: PatrykSzczescie on May 29, 2018, 05:14:00 PM
Quote from: Alenerel on May 29, 2018, 03:32:08 PM
So Im trying to play with a killbox and... Its just too hard to build the defenses without constantly thinking "okay, i cannot do this otherwise these are killboxes". Its just natural trying to corner the enemy or at least funnel them into, if not a 1 tile corridor, at least to a single flank where you can deal with them instead of leaving your butt surrounded like an idiot.

I tested that Builder difficulty you can fight off raiders without turrets or any defences, just use cover and the best melee weapon you can loot for melee pawns and guns for shooters. Use rock chunks and easy won fight.



After reading Yoshida's post, he reminded me of an RPG game I used to play. There were PvP and levelling system didn't affect PvP directly, only grinding to make money. The money was spent for EQ that served PvP purposes. It means even a new player with a lot of money could beat the most experienced players. However, passive players used to get robbed of their money during grinding before they could put their earnings into a bank.

And a developer of this game had a few ideas and introduced them, saying he'd implement those where the majority is more for than against. And one of them was to make some areas safe from PvP. It was a newbie-friendly idea so the majority supported this and devs implemented it. Before, wherever you wanted to grind, there was PvP, everywhere. Now, there are some safe areas for those who want to make money without PvP.

How did this work? It killed the game. In the next month, until the day today, the activity has decreased tenfold. This is my supposition from now on, but I think the split between PvP-active (who fought PvP) and PvP-passive players (who were grinding in safe areas) killed the game. The PvP-active players were unable to farm from the weaker ones, they could only fight with those who want, seeing it's not an RPG, but only a sole battle arena game. The PvP-passive ones were just grinding. They were grinding, grinding and grinding until they got so much money that they didn't know what to do with those, they got bored and quit the game.

This could be similar to this singleplayer RimWorld game. Players are proud of their achievements. They're also jealous, which could be seen by those who on greatest difficulty manage their colonies using cheap tricks innocently ridiculing those who play on the same difficulty. On the other hand, players who have difficulty fighting for real, if they make themselves too easy regardless of game difficulty, there will be a moment in the game where they get everything, meaning they can't get anything else and they'll lose their purpose of playing. A player enjoys the most when he overcomes a challenge of his difficulty, feeling he did well, but he can do more.

Of course, there are players with their difficulties in fighting, there always will be. Motivate those with greater rewards. Make more precise tutorial about how to fight. No killboxes. This is not the right answer. Thrill them with more challenges - that's what players want that's what they're playing for.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Alenerel on May 30, 2018, 03:56:01 PM
This is my situation. Im building a 2nd perimeter cause I dont have enough clearance to shoot properly in my inner one. Problem Im finding is that I want to build the wall in red. Its purpose is to make that all enemies that come north go to the left (its opened in the left) so i can defend that single flank only instead of all the north flank... Would be that cheating?

These are actual real tactics used in real combat... But I cannot help but to feel like cheating. And this is important for me cause when I stick to a kind of game play I need strict rules.

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/916926144389181585/3F4E242C92DDD48ECAA950C89ADBC9DA557CADCD/
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Yoshida Keiji on June 01, 2018, 10:30:36 AM
I cant see your whole base because you left the User Interface open, but about the section you are referring to, I personally wouldn't classify it as killbox or "cheating" as you say.

The two main problems with killbox are:

* It literally removes combat from the game. I cant imagine how could RimWorld be "fun" if fighting is excluded from a player's experience. As in putting all your pawns on the outside of a box while waiting for the AI getting inside is no fighting.

* Because of no combat, a player doesn't really gain any expertise in combat and killbox players oftenly come out with very ridiculous comments/suggestions/complains. They are lame in everything they say and they don't even realize how they "look" to everybody else.


I personally believe that all players will have the "gaming" growing expertise that move players from novice to expert, but killbox players is like they remain trapped in the green area without ever advancing in play style. So just to me, others may differ in opinions, as long as you keep experimenting and refining your layout tactics, you are totally fine. Mind you, from day one in my RW experience, I have never built a killbox myself because I love being challenged and heard about the concepts, first in the wiki, then in the forums and lately in Discord but to me...the game is about fun...so I always go and try wild things, I don't play for maximum industrial efficiency as I see many people do. The way to produce a lot and fast doesn't really interest me. I like to go more relaxed and always doing something different.

The thing is, I grew up so much in combat, that I consider myself combat efficient to the point that my favorite building style is to start minimalistic and "Urban Warfare" oriented, which means I don't even build city walls anymore and just place my pawns in open doors, shoot from there and hide when in danger, once enemies had moved, I peak out and keep fighting. City Walls come somewhere in mid-game for me. And in late game, yeah, double city walls maybe.

I just became so good at fighting to the point that layout doesnt really matter to me anymore. So... just to give you something I'm uploading one screenshot of every save file I kept for you to take a look at how at least I do my bases. It would be really interesting to see how others do as well. If you want the save files I can upload them too. I play all my games in Vanilla so none of them have any mods.


(https://i.imgur.com/TvYGOEJ.png)
This one was my very first game when B18 Unstable was released for public testing it is Cassandra Rough in Tropical Swamp. Ready to launch the SS. I only put up walls on the West, South-west and North-west. All other sides are completely open... Im including the river as part of my defense line to the East, the south-east has a "Firing Wall", central east has a "bunker" and northern-east also has a mini-firing-wall. There's 2 turrets at the center-western side in case I have to retreat to Urban Warfare and maybe some other turrets but I cant recall them unless I load the save file, but nothing really too strategical, I use turrets mostly as last resort back up.




(https://i.imgur.com/rl27HtS.png)

This is Randy Rough in Desert. What can I say...another Open Base layout with just a mini "Firing Wall" to the West, a very simple "Bunker" at the top center...and the rest again...is "Urban Warfare". The little walls I have built are mostly due to the proximity with the map borders just in case a raid just spawn there and I don't want instant threat, so I built them just to have some "reaction" time only.






(https://i.imgur.com/UCzQ1Wb.png)

This is Randy Intense - Tundra biome: Not much planning needed as I hid inside the "C" large hill and gradually expanded to the West. This time, no "Bunkers", no "Firing Walls"...just City Walls with 3 sandbags in front of each door. Like always there's good "Urban Warfare".

Basically the "key" to Urban Warfare is that from standing on the doors, you should be able to shoot all areas from all angles by having all your ranged pawns somehow on the incoming side and then just move from room to room as battle develops. Also something I will write now so I don't forget to mention later...Absolutely all my games are Lost Tribe.






(https://i.imgur.com/f4OkE2C.png)

This is Randy Intense - Cold Bog: This looks like a mess because its like my base is traversed by a large hill, but in reality I just had the large hill as northern wall and late game out of boredom, I pigged a central path and expanded to the north. "Urban Warfare" present as always, the center area could be considered protected by a City Wall and all other areas are just reinforced due to the walls being so close to the rooms.

This base is fun to look at, because the walls materials can easily show you the progression. Wooden were the first ones and stone walls the later ones.






(https://i.imgur.com/dVlXFUj.png)

Randy Extreme in Temperate Forest: Again...same sequence...urban warfare...city walls...and one turret in case I need to fall back from the northern walls.






(https://i.imgur.com/m2Xbvtl.png)

Randy Extreme in Arid Shrubland: Urban warfare + city walls. I played this one very minimalistic and compacted before it shaped like a square. Originally was like a Tetris block or AC/DCs lightning icon and then expanded to the East.

Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: tmo97 on June 02, 2018, 08:44:30 AM
Why is everyone so biased and lying just to get what they want

"that's what they're playing for."
no it's not, you're doing the thing where you preach in a pep-talk kinda way in order to inspire people but all you're actually doing is convincing people that they have your opinion.
i'm not playing for the challenges. there you go. good job eliminating everyone that has a different opinion than yours by pretending we're just not there.

another thing "When a killbox player asks for a 100 tile range gun you know there's something wrong" no, that's just the moment you got triggered. Your entire post is a slippery slope argument, look it up.

Killboxes. In real life, they work. If you want them not to work, something will have to be deducted from the game that will make things look awkward. True/false?
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: TheRetroGamer on November 12, 2019, 12:29:33 PM
I quite like this idea
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: ProfZelonka on November 14, 2019, 03:34:37 PM
What happens to the game when all the possible paths to the base are 100% covered in the killzone layer? Meaning, that raids tried everywhere, and failed and raiders died everywhere.

What good is this mod then?
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Pangaea on November 14, 2019, 06:33:51 PM
Don't like it to be honest, for several reasons.

* If Tynan wanted to kill killboxes, there are cheaper ways to do it. Make them hack into the base somewhere else, behind the killbox for instance, which sappers sometimes already do
* Think this system would be very "expensive" performance-wise, especially in the late game when you get hit by raids of 200+ people. Imagine every single one of those constantly re-evaluating paths based on some of the raiders dying on traps. It would be Lag Central
* I've seen some colossal raids with 80+ mechs or 200+ raiders, or 80-100 raiders with 30-40 doomsday+triple rockets. A killbox should quite frankly be an *option* to take on raids like that
* Principally speaking I think killboxes should be an alternative in the game for people who like them, and not be entirely removed. Historically you have versions of killboxes, so in that regard it makes sense for them to remain too.

And based on what I have gathered from some posts of Tynan's on the forum, he doesn't want to remove them either. If he did, they'd already be gone.

One of the magic aspects with the game is that it offers a wide range of choices to us, different gamestyles and difficulties. Some like killboxes, some don't. Some see them as a necessary evil (raises hand). Some play in harsh climates with one dude, and others start with 5-8 well-equipped people. Heck, some customise them to the n-th degree using mods as well. It's good to have this variance in not only the technical difficulty level, but in how people set up and choose to play the game as well.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: ForeverZer0 on November 14, 2019, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Pangaea on November 14, 2019, 06:33:51 PM
Don't like it to be honest, for several reasons.

I tend to agree. In the end, using killboxes is just a play style, no one and nothing is requiring that you use them, and many do not. The same theories hold true IRL when fortifying a base, such as creating choke-points and areas advantageous to the defenders and putting attackers at a disadvantage. The sapper mechanics trying to breach through your defenses through alternative means already exists, as well as ambushes with drop-pods, etc.

I personally cannot think of any game that has an AI has complex as what you are requesting, as was already mentioned, that is a ton of extremely complicated logic that would need computed for each pawn.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Yoshida Keiji on November 14, 2019, 10:27:25 PM
The "problem" with people who have become dependent on Killboxes, is that they have actually forgotten to think "out of the box".

It is extremely easy to handle WITHOUT a kill box a raid of 200 hostiles and 80 mechanoids with 50 doomsday's + triple rockets in Randy Extreme. You just need to build "DECOY" based scattered across the map.

The Enemy AI doesn't know to recognize which is your "REAL" base.

Also, Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Pangaea on November 15, 2019, 04:40:14 AM
Swap one exploit/cheese/whatever for another? *shrug*

Don't think such sweeping and quite frankly inaccurate statements help the debate climate either.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: bugi on November 15, 2019, 05:18:53 AM
Yeps, if they are made smart enough to avoid obvious killing zones, they should also be made smart enough to also prioritize obviously larger or denser building areas. Latter is actually easier to code and less calculations, and even thematically easier to explain.

See, ask one ability to be removed from the player, the same logic can easily be used to remove plenty more, even the tricks you like...

Also, if we continue with AI smartness development, the ultimate end result would be to also consider the "danger zones" in the world map level (same logic applied, but again much easier to code). The player's colony tile would quickly become one _very_ deadly zone, to be avoided at all cost. AIs would make a few futile attacks in the begin and decide one of two choices: either 1) all-out assault , i.e. large share of their total faction population at the time when your base has maybe 6-10 pawns, barely finishing their first outer wall if you were smart enough to start building one... (i.e. game over) or 2) semi-permanent peace, i.e. independent of their current relations, they would not attack for a looooong time (but will not trade with you either).

In a sense, I like the idea of making the NPCs smarter, but it must not be just one trick, but consider it more widely. Even the player's NPC AI's should also get smarter (there are several easy changes that would make them behave much better and more "naturally"), but that is another topic.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: entelin on November 18, 2019, 03:59:16 PM
Killbox's are mostly dead now, not sure why people are still talking about it.

With all the raid types we have now, you need to have a variety of defense strategies. One problem with true killbox's is they tend to be rather expensive, and since they don't apply to every raid, having one makes the most dangerous types of raids even more dangerous. A one tile hole in a wall costs nothing, with melee holding the breach, ranged behind, and animals trained for release is probably safer overall than a full killbox.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: ForeverZer0 on November 18, 2019, 04:14:57 PM
Pretty sure massive amounts of people still use them, possibly even the majority of people. The point being, it is just a play style, nothing forced upon anyone. No sense in complaining about them, it is entirely the choice of the person playing them game whether or not they are used.

A "one tile hole in the wall" strategy might be alright early game, but quickly becomes totally obsolete at even the mid-game. A melee fighter with other behind him is not going to hold back a hundred or more raiders, mechanoids, and an army of doomsday rocket launcher-wielding soldiers. Those will also make quite short work of whatever animal release you might have in reserve.

The thing that makes those other raid types "more dangerous" is for the specific reason that the enemy immediately bypasses your strongest defenses and/or avoids your choke-point, whether it be drop-pods or an infestation if you chose to build in a mountain.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Yoshida Keiji on November 18, 2019, 10:44:47 PM
@ForeverZero:

The "real" problem at hand runs much deeper than you think. To understand the whole situation you need to understand "Who is Who".

* If people want to always remain in their Comfort Zone, and eternally live in the baby cradle, so be it.
* The "real problem" arises when these lazy arzes, start to make complaints for the sole goal to ensure killboxes are 100% effective for their whole gameplay.
* Any player that has "grown" without killboxes, will find very annoying when "K-Box" dependant players start to whine about any threat that actually Bypasses their sole defense: be it for instance... PREDATORS.
* If you take a look at players like "Shurp", the guy also asked for a rifle that can hit over 100 tiles away... basically the game must be "cheesed" to 500%...
* The next thing he will suggest (if not already, because I haven't played RW for like half a year now and stopped following the forum) will probably be: A rifle that can hit raiders from 3 WORLD tiles away so that Raiders don't even show up on his map.

The problem is that the large percentage of RimWorld player base have never grown past the "Baby Cradle", so when Tynan listens to these babies... the game gets ruined for everybody else...but the crybabies...
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: entelin on November 19, 2019, 01:31:49 AM
Quote from: ForeverZer0 on November 18, 2019, 04:14:57 PMA "one tile hole in the wall" strategy might be alright early game.... A melee fighter with other behind him is not going to hold back a hundred or more...
If you are fighting off raids of 100 and needing killboxes to deal with it, then your playing a high wealth game, not necessarily a "mid" or "late" game. With up to around 9 colonists a simple trapped corridor with a corner to a single tile opening with 3-4 melee at the breach and ranged behind one with emp for mechs, molitov for everything else, is very effective and works for base drops and sappers as well. Melee is actually the most effective way of dealing with centipedes in fact since their ranged attack gets shut down. Once you have enough people to do the killbox+chaingun defense then that becomes good to add but only because it allows you to better deal with the kinds of events that will go through the killbox. Killbox's are a double edged sword though because as I said above, they are expensive contributing to raid score, thus also scaling raids that do not go through the killbox.

So all in all, playing without a killbox, when controlling wealth, is in fact optimal, and every single speed run is just a simple corridor with traps. In high wealth games killboxes become an option to consider, but by no means obviously needed.

I therefore decree this topic anachronistic and therefore needless to ever discuss again. Mods, you can close the topic now. XD
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Ramsis on November 19, 2019, 09:38:22 AM
Take it easy Keiji, no reason to go running and gunning on others because their playstyle doesn't match yours.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: ReZpawner on November 19, 2019, 10:59:40 PM
Yup. The whole rimworld gatekeeping really needs to go. The strength of the game is that you can play it in so many different ways. Some people want a hard game that ends in defeat, others want to roleplay a medieval settlement without power, others want to create the perfect utopia. All of those options, and a hundred more are valid and awesome in their own ways.
Title: Re: Killing killboxes.
Post by: Pangaea on November 21, 2019, 06:13:19 AM
^^ Indeed. This is what I (tried to) touch upon earlier. One of the marvellous things about the game is that we can set up the difficulty however we like. Both with Rough/Merciless/etc, but also with countless other "sliders". Like whether we use/don't use a killbox, which biome, scenario, customised settings, nearby trading factions, build in mountain or not. And yes... whether you use a killbox or not, and whether you use thousand traps or not. Or for that matter, whether you place 50 stools all over the map or not.

The game is a sandbox, and I love the fact we can play it however we like. No way to play it is wrong. It's a story generator after all  8)