I have found a topic on Reddit recently where Tynan said he didn't want to add embrasures to the game because people were walling themselves in too much already. So I thought I'd start a thread where we could discuss how the game would have to change to entice us to play more open play styles.
Some thoughts:
- currently, the crashed ship parts always forces me out. Maybe we need more lingering dangers? Something that appears on the map and stays there until you deal with it.
- I think that mining is currently too fast. It is so easy to mine deep into the mountain that there is no reason to build outside. Not to mention that it is actually cheaper to have a mountain base. The walls are already there and the smooth stone floor requires no materials.
For me its just the numbers of raiders that needs better balancing, as it stands there's a certain wealth limit and then its pretty much game over. People are always building in preperation of the mass horde that will inevitably trounce them, this is what needs addressing.
Some good ideas so far.
What about adding some subterranean dangers to consider when building a mountain base. Maybe something similar to a Horta http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Horta
A possibly hostile creature that can tunnel through mountains (can spawn / disappear on any square that is next to natural rock). Maybe have it eat metal supply / damage existing buildings or power lines rather than just attacking colonists without reason, but retaliate if attacked and be rather strong.
To counter this and not have to keep pulling colonists to defend your base,
you can line the cave walls with a colonist made material.
But this means that instead of digging a 2 wide hallway and being done, now you have to dig a 4 wide hallway and then construct walls on both sides.
So you have the ability to build mountain bases, but you are spending the same amount of resources as you would on walls to build an outdoor base in addition to the mining time.
I, ever since my first game, have always made a mountain base, i check where the thin roof lines are and make sure not to expose my base under them in the event pods crash through. I always make my hallways 5 tiles wide, and line them with metal walls. Antimater reactors (i remove the build outdoors only restriction) I build at the back of my base, at the edge of the maps build-able area. The entrance to my base is through two types of killboxes that can deal with most anything. ship parts can be walled off and delt with. mechanoid raids are the only real concern but no biggie. food can be grown inside, trade post in the middle of my killbox saves space and give my people reason to go outside to avoid cabin fever. plus im always recovering crap and mining outside my base so its not much of an issue. I have no reason to do anything different.
That being said, a Horta would be an awesome idea, I loved that episode!
To get people out of the mountain, making mining more difficult would just slow down resource extraction way too much. I did suggest armoured roofing for buildings a while back but Tynan said it would unbalance the game. Not sure I agree if you make it costly but i get where he is coming from. Maybe a point defence laser array that shoots down hostile drop pods? or just shield domes? Id love to have an outside complex, but it is just far too exposed.
Quote from: skullywag on September 27, 2014, 05:17:35 AM
For me its just the numbers of raiders that needs better balancing, as it stands there's a certain wealth limit and then its pretty much game over. People are always building in preperation of the mass horde that will inevitably trounce them, this is what needs addressing.
This is the biggest issue with building on the open!
Anyhow! earthquakes, maybe =P tunnels collapsing, yes? Great fun!
Colonist peers into dark cave with flashlight, Runs back to the safety door made at the entrance, closes it, then turns around and says to his other colonists in fear, "They have a Cave Muffalo! :o"
Also to add if the cabin fever thought got worse overtime (i know it kinda does) and only showed when under a roof, you would at least need an open air bit inside your mountain retreat or risk breakdowns.
Again ill stress i believe giving the raider balancing some love (which i think is at least partly addressed in A7) plus some more tools (barbed wire, Electric fences ets) would help loads.
Why is this an issue? It's a difference between play styles, people who like engineering turret defenses dig into a mountain and people who like using tactics and maneuvering their pawns around build outside. If anything, the lack of knowledge in the community is the problem. People tell the newbies "Build a mountain base and huge killbox OR DIE!" who then repeat it others and eventually everyone believes building an outside colony is only good for seeing how quickly can you lead your colony to its demise.
Outside colonies can be a better choice already, depending on the player and situation. There is no need to give them some crazy advantage just to force people out into the open, let's just not scare them into holing up in a mountain all the time.
(That said, some of the suggestions in this thread sound awesome!)
People wall themselves off and build defenses when they feel they are under the risk of attack. Building walls and defenses is the natural response to threats which come at you on the ground.
This has been true since the dawn of civilization, and it remains true today. Drop-pods didn't help - if anything, they made things worse, since now not only can you come under attack over-land, but you can come under attack from people dropping right in on top of you, even smashing through roofs to do so!
The Dwarven approach is the logical extension - digging a hole (diggy diggy hole, diggy diggy hole!) and being safe(r) inside it.
If you want to change this, then you need to drastically reduce both the frequency and the intensity of raids, or else dramatically reduce the danger of those raids. If bandits behaved less like Borderlands 2 psychos who will fight (nearly) to the last man, and more like profit-motivated opportunists who don't want to die today, and consequently would choose not to attack a well-armed camp altogether, or would retreat after only a few casualties, then fortress-style defenses would become less of a priority in the players' minds. I've been saying that since the beginning.
Other things you can do is buff machine gun turrets. I mean a lot. Make them actually as lethal as hosing an area with an M249 down actually should be, and players will feel that a few of them are an effective perimeter, rather than being laughably pathetic loss-leaders who exist only to draw fire from the well-entrenched colonists hiding in the pillboxes. Suggestions: Give them the range of a sniper rifle and seriously non-stop firing. Like, ten-round bursts with a three-second cooldown between them - and code the intelligent hostiles to really, really want to not get in range of them. (Non-intelligent hostiles, of course, can just get mowed down.) If the bandits prefer to wait and see if maybe the turrets power down before they attack, and otherwise will just leave if they can't find a safe path through the field of fire, then overlapping turret fields of fire alone should be enough in the way of defenses... At least until the power suddenly goes out.
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
It's not
always awful:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRz40ksiKdnml9F5Eks3xcHoPimAoQ0UnmX-P0MnIN_ivTKJPeN8w)
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRz40ksiKdnml9F5Eks3xcHoPimAoQ0UnmX-P0MnIN_ivTKJPeN8w (https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRz40ksiKdnml9F5Eks3xcHoPimAoQ0UnmX-P0MnIN_ivTKJPeN8w) (Source)
It's the sheer number of hostiles. You need to limit the ways they can attack because there are so many of them.
I've been playing with a mod of my own which introduces tougher pawns. They soak up more points than a bunch of pistol drifters, so the enemies are fewer, but they're better armed. Sieges are no longer stuffed with piles of snipers.
I actually noticed yesterday that if you wall off completely, grenadiers will attack your walls with frag grenades. So you're not completely safe behind a set of walls.
Personally, I think the raiders give up too easily. Instead of bashing at your walls until they do a set amount of damage, if they aren't dealt with they should set up a camp and move supplies in so that they can keep going for longer.
I think it would be more interesting then, if you could leave your base through a secret exit to harass the raiders into leaving. When I play Minecraft I like to have a piston-operated door which blends in with its surroundings. Or going back a ways, there was something similar in Battle for Middle Earth. Maybe we can have something like that in Rimworld so that we're not constantly on the defensive.
Also, has no-one thought it strange that raiders, when they commence their assault, can dash half-way across the map without getting so much as a little bit winded? In power armour, even. As far as I've seen, there's no penalty for being fatigued apart from the mood dump.
How, as far as my opinions go, should the game be balanced in this regard:
1) Mining should be slower. Right now mining is faster than most jobs, including wood chopping, which is ridiculous to say the least.
2) Less mineral veins, but they take longer to "tear" down and yield more metal, which will drop in an adjacent square. Those who played dungeon keeper will know what I'm talking about. This way you can carve your mountain better and you can keep the same extraction rate.
3) Armor rating for stuff, numeral, not percentage, although you could use both. So rock shouldn't be shot down by punches or pistol shots (nor similarly strong materials, like most walls and powered doors).
This would empower building outside because doors wouldn't be ridiculously weak and VIP entrances to raiders as it is now.
To counter impenetrable defenses, a climbing tool or explosives (and an "avoid-killbox" AI behavior) would add to the game diversity without requiring massive amounts of enemies.
4) Should slots/ tool slots be implemented, the mining tool would be a nice balance, dwarfing would be impractical without the tool. So, then, you could have random drops: random people, random "starting kit", random map. Conversely, if you'd really like in a particular time to build dwarftown, you could select the appropriate starting kit at chargen.
This could open a myriad of tactics. A starting kit with a mining tool would mean a quicker path to entrench yourself, but also it means you couldn't bring Cheryl 2000 the sexy cleaning bot, or the mobile extra expensive Templar C3KL medbay or the M68 Gauss Rifle (military issue only) or, perhaps the Mk.4 UJK "Deus EX" mobile artillery (the one with extra accuracy). Flavor aside, you know, "unique" objects that are chargen obtained only or a long branch of a research path, that will give you an edge (a very particular one) and make your start and middle game different for a couple dozen plays.
5) reduce enemy amount. As per the much requested and a7 incoming fix. But make them more of a constant threat. Make them diverse in their tactics. Some will just raid your farms, for example. So you'll need to keep guards and patrols. You'll need emplacements outside either way.
6) this is a minor, but recently dug walls should provide a small debuff, because you know, they are raw rock walls, ugly and full of spiders.
Embrasures are needed, dismissing that on the grounds that players will dug- in even more is like saying you don't need power armor because you already have flak jackets. There are a ton of ways to make it balanced and the game even more interesting :)
Regards,
Have it so if a mortar hits a mountain roof there is a chance of a cave in, crushing colonists and items underneath and turning those spots to bare rock.
This means if in a mountain base you'd have to be offensive lest everything fall upon your head.
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
How, as far as my opinions go, should the game be balanced in this regard:
1) Mining should be slower. Right now mining is faster than most jobs, including wood chopping, which is ridiculous to say the least.
Maybe make it slower at the start, and require more research to speed it up. I would definitely agree with a system like that.
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
2) Less mineral veins, but they take longer to "tear" down and yield more metal, which will drop in an adjacent square. Those who played dungeon keeper will know what I'm talking about. This way you can carve your mountain better and you can keep the same extraction rate.
Ehh, maybe. I'd have to try this before I'd jump at the idea.
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
3) Armor rating for stuff, numeral, not percentage, although you could use both. So rock shouldn't be shot down by punches or pistol shots (nor similarly strong materials, like most walls and powered doors).
This would empower building outside because doors wouldn't be ridiculously weak and VIP entrances to raiders as it is now.
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe keep the doors as they are now, but require research to unlock higher HP for them? My researchers need something to do.
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
To counter impenetrable defenses, a climbing tool or explosives (and an "avoid-killbox" AI behavior) would add to the game diversity without requiring massive amounts of enemies.
Doesn't apply to me, so whatever on this one.
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
4) Should slots/ tool slots be implemented, the mining tool would be a nice balance, dwarfing would be impractical without the tool. So, then, you could have random drops: random people, random "starting kit", random map. Conversely, if you'd really like in a particular time to build dwarftown, you could select the appropriate starting kit at chargen.
Ehh... I'm not so sure about that one. Granted, it's unlikely that there would be three electric pickaxes in a spaceship crash, but it seems like you're cutting that playstyle off entirely, which I don't like.
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
This could open a myriad of tactics. A starting kit with a mining tool would mean a quicker path to entrench yourself, but also it means you couldn't bring Cheryl 2000 the sexy cleaning bot, or the mobile extra expensive Templar C3KL medbay or the M68 Gauss Rifle (military issue only) or, perhaps the Mk.4 UJK "Deus EX" mobile artillery (the one with extra accuracy). Flavor aside, you know, "unique" objects that are chargen obtained only or a long branch of a research path, that will give you an edge (a very particular one) and make your start and middle game different for a couple dozen plays.
Forget the last part, I like this kind of tradeoff thing. Choose your playstyle and have fun!
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
5) reduce enemy amount. As per the much requested and a7 incoming fix. But make them more of a constant threat. Make them diverse in their tactics. Some will just raid your farms, for example. So you'll need to keep guards and patrols. You'll need emplacements outside either way.
Reducing enemy count seems redundant, since you can do that with the different challenges anyhow. I like the rest, though.
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
6) this is a minor, but recently dug walls should provide a small debuff, because you know, they are raw rock walls, ugly and full of spiders.
Maybe make it so that they always have that, so you have to dig around them and make new walls or something? I don't know if that's possible, but it's a thought.
Quote from: Anarak on September 27, 2014, 08:49:23 PM
Embrasures are needed, dismissing that on the grounds that players will dug- in even more is like saying you don't need power armor because you already have flak jackets. There are a ton of ways to make it balanced and the game even more interesting :)
Not sure what to say to this one.
Thanks for the feedback all. Taking some notes here.
Embrasures do allow for some serious offensive firepower from behind the walls, to be fair, but colonists can still be injured while they're leaning out to shoot.
I think it would be slightly less cheesy though if walls could have battlements and your colonists could climb on top to fire down at the raider/tribal/zombie hordes. They would have less cover in that position than full walls provide, but they would be able to duck behind it in between shots.
Also, battlements could track their damage separately to the wall supporting them - meaning that available cover may diminish over the course of a battle. Or, if colonists are standing on a wall when it collapses, they may find themselves in a sticky position. :)
It is really only drop pods that make me turtle in the mountain. if we had some way to secure against them then i wouldnt feel that need. also, the thing about making the raiders do things like climb walls and such, could be defeated by making extra thick walls. kamikaze with satchel charges would be fun tho.
plus id argue against cabin fever being any more oppressive than it already is. unless someone is claustrophobic (new trait?) then it should only be a minor mood issue. in WW2 british command was in underground bunkers for months. that was without comfy royal beds or hydroponic gardens or flower pots. not saying some people didnt have issues. but if being outside meant death then stuck underground becomes more acceptable.
i agree its odd that mining rock takes less time than felling a tree but i see that as an argument to make trees faster to cut down, not making rock slower.
i still think being able to armor the roof of buildings and making them immune to drop pods would go a ways to getting people out of the mountain. as long as they are supported like they need to be in a mountain. build them like you do flooring otherwise.
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PMGood discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Historically, sallying out against a siege is the absolute
worst thing you can do, because then the advantages of hunkering down - choke-points and hardened places from which to fight - are turned around on you. Sieges either break when the defenders outlast the besiegers, or when the defenders are rescued by their outside allies.
QuoteAdding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
Too much stick, Tynan.
Way too much stick. You've created a situation where the only logical thing to do for defense is to hunker down in the mountain, but you want players to not do that, so you're trying to make that option logistically unworkable from a morale point of view. That'll just result in fear-based colonies being the only viable colonies, because then sure everybody will be miserable, but they'll be too
frightened to step out of line, what with having their own ensuite gibbed corpse.
Anyway, the underground lifestyle is a great idea in this kind of situation. Quite frankly, Tynan, you're behaving like a petulant dungeon master who's upset because his players have developed an effective and well-oiled strategy, so you're trying to change the rules so you can smack them around. That is
not cool, man. Instead of trying to punish the players for choosing the security of subterranean life, make superterranean life a viable choice, not something filled with constant danger (raiders, raiders, raiders, rampaging muffalo, OMG PSYCHO BOOMSQUIRRELs, lightning strikes, etc,) that you're forced into because the safe option has been artificially closed off.
Give carrots -
significant ones - for living outdoors, and reduce the extreme urgency of "Oh my god got to get under the mountain or I'll die" safety, and players may start building out in the open again.
Quote from: marvinkosh on September 27, 2014, 08:16:00 PMI actually noticed yesterday that if you wall off completely, grenadiers will attack your walls with frag grenades. So you're not completely safe behind a set of walls.
That's why most players don't build a complete set of walls. Personally, what I did was build a mostly-complete set of walls, with a direct opening into a death-zone which was basically a fortified pillbox, set up so that my shooters would be in darkness and behind walls and sandbags, and blocked from pathing by hydroponics tables, forcing the baddies to go through a set of doors to get to them, with turrets in the middle and obvious defensive positions for people attacking to take cover behind. The defensive positions were mined, so that when the "enemy trench" was full to the gills with baddies, I could blow them all up.
QuotePersonally, I think the raiders give up too easily. Instead of bashing at your walls until they do a set amount of damage, if they aren't dealt with they should set up a camp and move supplies in so that they can keep going for longer.
Why? That makes no sense. They're
raiders. They're here to strike fast and grab what they can. They're not a medieval army laying siege to your castle so they can take it for themselves. Raiders have no business attacking a well-fortified position, they should just move on.
QuoteI think it would be more interesting then, if you could leave your base through a secret exit to harass the raiders into leaving. When I play Minecraft I like to have a piston-operated door which blends in with its surroundings. Or going back a ways, there was something similar in Battle for Middle Earth. Maybe we can have something like that in Rimworld so that we're not constantly on the defensive.
The problem with that is that
nothing is secret from the AI. They'll path to your "secret" exit, blow it open, and oh look, now they're running around in your back tunnels.
Marvin - Battlements would be cool but I don't want to do 3D half-way. If we do 3D we'll do it all the way. This is sort of a half-hacked-in system is something I very much try to avoid.
Shadow - The lecturing/insulting tone really isn't constructive.
Perhaps adding a time limit to Geothermal energy? Let's say that after 7 or 10 months of having built one, the building starts to wear down and eventually stops working at all, making that energy spot pretty much useless. The Geyser could pretty much work as a resource, draining it in order to gain power.
That would force colonists to expand outside in order to build a power source made out of Solar Energy, leaving Thermal energy for night cycles or Eclipses. Of course that means that the output of solar energy could perhaps need to be buffed up a little more. I'd say 1/6 more than the current output it has. That would make large colonies sustainable if all the Thermal options for the map were depleted.
PS: That would also mean that a lot of area would be exposed to a potentially deadly mortar attack, that could cause everything to burn up in flames if the threat wasn't dealt with fast enough.
If that was the case, I would definitely need to adapt a more offensive strategy, and also move my base a little closer to the 'surface' in order to put out any eventual fires fast enough.
Quote from: TheXIIILightning on September 27, 2014, 11:23:03 PM
Perhaps adding a time limit to Geothermal energy? Let's say that after 7 or 10 months of having built one, the building starts to wear down and eventually stops working at all, making that energy spot pretty much useless. The Geyser could pretty much work as a resource, draining it in order to gain power.
It wouldn't be too hard to make a solar farm for a mountain base. I already build mine at the edge of my maps. Solar energy's also pretty damn good already. I can fund a fairly large base with six solar panels with room to spare for batteries.
Okay well, I feel bad about building killboxes because while they're efficient, they're only that way because raiders pour into them and get nailed. And then you get their gear. Rinse well with soapy water and repeat.
So I think that raid need to be a bit smarter as well as smaller. Let's teach the AI the value of sending in one guy to set off the defences, evaluate, and then say 'right, there's got to be an easier way into this place!'
This in turn makes kill boxes less useful, since the AI isn't going to waste bodies on them, and makes generalised defences more useful, because the raiders will try to find a weak point. And if they can't find one, then they can give up and go home.
Quote from: marvinkosh on September 27, 2014, 11:50:20 PM
Okay well, I feel bad about building killboxes because while they're efficient, they're only that way because raiders pour into them and get nailed. And then you get their gear. Rinse well with soapy water and repeat.
So I think that raid need to be a bit smarter as well as smaller. Let's teach the AI the value of sending in one guy to set off the defences, evaluate, and then say 'right, there's got to be an easier way into this place!'
This in turn makes kill boxes less useful, since the AI isn't going to waste bodies on them, and makes generalised defences more useful, because the raiders will try to find a weak point. And if they can't find one, then they can give up and go home.
I think the solution to this is to make your entire map a killbox. I'd probably do it.
While I din't appreciate ShadowDragon8685's tone, he did bring up one excellent point: we have been all concentrating on sticks: how to force people to change their play styles. What we need is more incentives to go outside/explore.
Some possible incentives to stay outside/explore:
- better supplies falling from the sky - I never bother picking up the falling metal/stone blocks/whatever, as I can make my own. There should be unique stuff there worth hauling to your base (imagine a crashed medical ship with medicine and artificial limbs or something, or maybe every map should be missing some resources by default)
- now that we have multiple ores, have them exist in veins, so that no single mountain has all of them - that way we will at least need mining expeditions/outposts
- make scavenging more useful - add plants which cannot be grown artificially and are too useful to ignore, like herbs that can be used as medicine or super-tasty fruit that boosts the mood significantly or poison you can apply to your pilas/machetes/whatever
- add "lingering dangers" that don't attack the base directly but circle around it and pick off unwary colonists - so that getting rid of them becomes a priority. Examples: a panther that never approaches if there is more than one person around, a group of pirate saboteurs that set up a small base on the opposite end of the map and make small excursions whenever they can get away with it and burn your crops but never actually attack the main base... that kind of stuff.
On topic of sieges: I think mortars should be way more powerful - currently, it is possible to simply ignore the siegers because I can repair my base faster than they can damage it. Or they should have some more artillery options which are not buildable by the colony. It would be logical that factions established on the planet have access to better gear than a stranded ragtag band of colonists. (And winning against the siegers would mean getting access to that superior weaponry.)
Also: siegers should always prioritize destroying power generators.
On topic of mining: one idea would be to make the mountain core made of some very hard material, almost impossible to tear down. This way, you could make a halfway mountain base, but at some point you would literally "hit the wall".
Quote from: stefanstr on September 28, 2014, 05:43:07 AM
While I din't appreciate ShadowDragon8685's tone, he did bring up one excellent point: we have been all concentrating on sticks: how to force people to change their play styles. What we need is more incentives to go outside/explore.
I have to agree with Stefan and Shadow here. While Shadow was a bit rude, that doesn't mean he doesn't have some good ideas in addition to the rest of us. Rather than directly punish the player, perhaps a better approach might be to give them the incentive to establish some infrastructure in the open.
Perhaps we should look at this subject in a different way entirely. Rather than forcing the player to one strategy or the other, why not attempt to flesh both out with their own distinct downfalls and benefits, encouraging the player to play a mix of the two?
I have several ideas and wish to expand on some ideas already discussed, but it will have to wait until I get a decent amount of sleep. Expect a post soon!
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
My suggestion: Make mortar shells cost ammunition to fire for the players, and have besiegers have LOADS of ammunition as well as being able to produce it on a small scale to more or else replenish what the lose.
Acts as a double edged sword too and makes it even MORE a war of attrition.
Having just started in a very mountainous map, I can see how you wouldn't have much choice but to roll with it. You either dig to clear some space (minding to watch for falling rocks) or you dig to tunnel out a base.
Quote from: Materialjam on September 28, 2014, 06:05:05 AM
Perhaps we should look at this subject in a different way entirely. Rather than forcing the player to one strategy or the other, why not attempt to flesh both out with their own distinct downfalls and benefits, encouraging the player to play a mix of the two?
Exactly, I don't think that we should not be trying to force colonies into the open, but we need to make it a meaningful and balanced choice, not a situation where there is always one easier way.
I still like my idea of the rock creature giving you an intensive to line your caverns with constructed walls.
Quote from: ComradeCrimson on September 28, 2014, 06:08:57 AM
My suggestion: Make mortar shells cost ammunition to fire for the players, and have besiegers have LOADS of ammunition as well as being able to produce it on a small scale to more or else replenish what the lose.
Acts as a double edged sword too and makes it even MORE a war of attrition.
I have a mod that I am working on that makes artillery require ammunition.
Having mortars cost ammo is good but i generally dont use them. I dont think mountain bases should be nerfed or punished. Its a valid base choice. As long as things are 'realistic' then we should always be allowed to do it. Not telling people they are having fun the wrong way and force them outside with punitive measures.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 28, 2014, 08:48:44 AM
Having mortars cost ammo is good but i generally dont use them. I dont think mountain bases should be nerfed or punished. Its a valid base choice. As long as things are 'realistic' then we should always be allowed to do it. Not telling people they are having fun the wrong way and force them outside with punitive measures.
Well, mining a hundred meters into a mountain in a matter of days in nothing if not unrealistic. In real life, tunneling through mountains requires extremely expensive equipment and can take years.
Quote from: stefanstr on September 28, 2014, 09:24:44 AM
Well, mining a hundred meters into a mountain in a matter of days in nothing if not unrealistic. In real life, tunneling through mountains requires extremely expensive equipment and can take years.
Maybe not with modern technology, but this game isnt really set with modern tech. For all we know the colonists are using nano swarms to eat the rock or whatever. Would you rather we spend hours of realtime with the game at time warp 3 just to clear a tile? You need to balance realism with fun. Not punish people for playing differently than you.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 28, 2014, 10:16:24 AM
Quote from: stefanstr on September 28, 2014, 09:24:44 AM
Well, mining a hundred meters into a mountain in a matter of days in nothing if not unrealistic. In real life, tunneling through mountains requires extremely expensive equipment and can take years.
Maybe not with modern technology, but this game isnt really set with modern tech. For all we know the colonists are using nano swarms to eat the rock or whatever. Would you rather we spend hours of realtime with the game at time warp 3 just to clear a tile? You need to balance realism with fun. Not punish people for playing differently than you.
I have voiced my opinion earlier: I think the core of the mountain should be nearly impossible to mine. The outer layer with ores should be made slightly more difficult to mine, but not very hard.
I don't want to punish people for playing differently than I do. I almost always build mountain bases, so if anything, I have started this thread to brainstorm ideas on how to make outside bases more interesting/viable/playable. I don't understand why you have gotten so defensive.
I maintain that adding earthquakes as an event is the best way to entice people to make outside colonies. Outside colonies wouldn't be affected much, but inside colonies could have roofs crumbling everywhere, colonists being crushed or trapped, and rooms being buried under piles of rubble.
Also, it just makes sense that the planet would have lots of earthquakes, given the shear amount of steam geysers on this planet.
It seemed like you were going towards punishment with realism. Either way, mountains really dont get much more dense with depth. The pressure just makes cave-ins more likely but I think that would be going too far. Different types of rock could be harder to mine through, but depth is somewhat irrelevant since you can find things at any layer depending on the geography. Making something impossible or near impossible to mine just seems punitive. If we want people outside, you need to make outside more viable, not making the inside less viable.
Earthquakes can damage buildings, even single story, in the open. Maybe they can damage walls, then if walls fall and they are load bearing underground then you get cave-ins.
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
I suggested a "Hive Queen" earlier whose premise was that it would steal local resources and turn them into mechaniods. It would be hard to implement, maybe impossible IDK, but I think its the principle that matters: The problem
grows over time, not diminishes. That will force the players out; not a siege that can be avoided by tunneling, gives you free stuff, and becomes
less dangerous over time.
As for living in a cave debuffs, living in a cave is generally preferable to living outside: The temperature is more constant and generally hovers around 30 degrees Celsius*. This is the principle behind Ground-Coupled air conditioning. If you can provide the proper amenities and raise the roof height to over 6 feet (maybe install a ceiling if rock bothers you) then you may as well be on the moon for all it matters. Especially since the current game build has no windows. I support the idea of new, underground dangers. Perhaps a few worm signs (the likes of which GOD has never seen)?
*Temperature varies with climate.
We should probably consider how little of a colony must be underground. I don't need my colonists to never see the light of day, I only need the dorm rooms, kitchen, and dining room underground. When a siege occurs, I merely cancel all jobs (except cooking), remove outside home regions, and remove outside stockpiles. The Colonists, now idle, will elect to gather around the dining room tables and chat, sleep, or maybe do botany on the hydroponic tables if I have them. Meanwhile, my outside constructions are safe because the Pirates only target colonists with mortars, and are thus obsessively firing into the mountainside.
What about raid escalation? Starts out as some guys charging your base. Then when that doesnt work they try different ways. have a DONT GO THERE zone for when they discover killboxes. So they may run into them once or twice but they learn to avoid them. Instead they try attacking walls then maybe even mine through the rock themselves. Somewhat like how undermining worked in castle sieges. BUT! the raids dont stop till you take out their camp. Their camp evolves from some dudes hanging out to some beds, buildings, sandbags, their own turrets, mortars, growing zones, basically making their own colony. Constantly attacking and being reinforced. Meaning they wont go away until you take them out. When you fight off raiders at your base and they run away, they just go back to camp. Of course the AI would need a good reworking for this. But it does give you a reason to come out and deal with things. The longer they stick around the more different ways they try to attack your base and the stronger they get.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 28, 2014, 11:45:01 AM
If we want people outside, you need to make outside more viable, not making the inside less viable.
Agreed. Any ideas of your own on how to do it?
Quote from: stefanstr on September 28, 2014, 12:54:47 PM
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 28, 2014, 11:45:01 AM
If we want people outside, you need to make outside more viable, not making the inside less viable.
Agreed. Any ideas of your own on how to do it?
My first post on the first page detailed my main idea. Nullify drop pod threats by giving us a shield or point defence system of some kind. I just started a new game in the jungle, no mountains, and I'm going to see how it turns out. Never really done a long term game that way and I am curious if it brings any new ideas.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 28, 2014, 02:28:41 PM
Quote from: stefanstr on September 28, 2014, 12:54:47 PM
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 28, 2014, 11:45:01 AM
If we want people outside, you need to make outside more viable, not making the inside less viable.
Agreed. Any ideas of your own on how to do it?
My first post on the first page detailed my main idea. Nullify drop pod threats by giving us a shield or point defence system of some kind. I just started a new game in the jungle, no mountains, and I'm going to see how it turns out. Never really done a long term game that way and I am curious if it brings any new ideas.
I missed it, this thread has gotten quite long... I think that roofs should be constructed like floors, and not be an automatic feature. This way we could also benefit from the new stuff system and build them from stronger materials.
I think there is an easy medium for mining speed that would reduce mountain bases. Leave the mining speed as it is for the metal ores and double or triple the time it takes for regular rock. There really is no reason for mining rock except to build bases and find ore. If you are looking for ore and the map is cleared of visible veins, then it I work to find more. And if you want to build underground, go for it. But you will have to work for it. This might make more people build an outside bases for a bit while they slowly make an underground base. Then you deserve the extra protection.
I don't see a slower mining speed as the solution. Personally, I won't stop embedding myself in a mountain just because it takes a week, instead of a day, to build an underground room. As long as the bunker is finished before the first siege it's a net gain for me. Until then some cheap wooden huts with no floors will store my food, beds, and prisoners.
Gonna be repeating many things. If it's been said before I'm just plus one-ing it.
Slower mining would create a situation where a colony has to develop externally in the process of mining out a viable defensive position. I personally like the mixture of internal and external. And I also feel mining is too fast and easy.
Of course the real issue is that there is no incentive to build an external base. The main problem is that given the choice of internal or external there will always be a tendency to build internal so long as the danger of being outside is higher than the danger of being inside. This only becomes a problem when the game is being balanced for the most defensible position.
The last thing we need is to punish mountain bases. This, I think, we mostly agree upon. Adding some legitimate threats to a mountain base that are unique to a mountain base would be a great idea though. Balance out the risk versus reward equation. Mountain bases should be a little more difficult to build; whether this is more time spent at the start up, or more resources to make the area nicer. After all, rough cut stone is not a comfortable look.
Some closing bullet points.
-Earthquakes: I really like the idea of earthquake events. They can damage walls and possibly structures like geothermal plants and solar arrays. And if these walls are load bearing then there is the chance of roof collapses. In the case of a mountain base the threat of collapse is greater since the amount of roof is simply greater.
Quality over quantity: Decrease raider party sizes; increase armaments or strategies. Currently there is a feeling that we have to build up to be defensive and deal with large waves of raiders. It simply becomes too much effort to not build some manner of kill box. When we feel the need to exploit AI pathing and behaviour in order to just survive then the threat level is maybe too high.
External Incentives: I don't think we need incentives to build outside. All that needs to happen is that outside should not feel like a lost cause or a bad life choice. With diminished raid density, and improved raiding behaviour, players would feel more comfortable building a cozy town rather than feeling compelled to build a fort.
As a post script I will say that in the beginning I leaned immediately towards building into mountains simply because I could. I knew nothing about the games mechanics and had no concept of the raider waves I would face. I maintained an external presence and defended from bunkers with my colonists. I later upgraded to kill boxes that simply funneled the raiders to my colonists fire zones.
Lately I have been building external towns with a deliberate intention to not pre-emptively escalate my defenses without reason. This means building a survival outpost initially and after the first raids I put in a defensive wall or at least some perimeter sand-bags. Playing on Randy-Random this method generally is not a death-wish. It is enjoyable and when I die I feel that I had a good game. On Cassandra Classic I find the never-ending escalation means that my external colony has a time limit. I will die. Just a matter of time, more often than not the same amount of time.
As a final point, which I've seen many people suggest, I would love to see the Raiders behave like raiders; that they try to steal from the colony rather than just attack all out until they are repelled. I have noticed with the new morale and injury system I am repelling the raids more easily and the raiders do run more frequently from the battle. This is good. It's the best part of having an town to watch the raiders retreat after the hard efforts of your colonists to scare them off. It should not be a matter of having to kill enough raiders to get them to retreat. Raiders should be discouraged from attacking a well defended position. Enough bullets fly your way and you should opt to come back later rather than just charge in to get a lucky kill on a colonist. I would love for raiders to feel more human. They are raiding to get supplies or prisoners. If the raiding target is too strong then you siege it to soften it up.
On the note of sieges I would also like to see the siege camps produce their own food. Or be resupplied if possible. Currently I have never had a siege that felt like a threat. I knew it would always collapse on itself (or at the select fire of my snipers).
Apologies for wall of text.
Also, I am under the impression that many of these things are already going to change in the upcoming alpha but doesn't hurt to share our thoughts. It's said all the time but it cannot be said enough: Tynan, you are awesome and amazing. Keep up the good work.
Quote from: C. Fenderson on September 27, 2014, 09:25:41 PM
Thanks for reading Fenderson, i'm glad at least someone reads some of my ramblings.
1): Yes, a research tree to improve mining speed would be one decent solution if not taking the tools one. It has the added benefit of getting more out of the research table.
2) By all means, play dungeon keeper! I though that less veins, that would yield metal at a faster rate than you mine metal and takes longer to get "erased" would actually make things better for those who like to dig in, because your cave doesn't look like a swiss cheese, less patching up those mining holes.
3): kicking a wood door should work as it is now, but powered doors shouldn't be able to be taken down by punches. What happens now is that when you are attacked, you have to close all your doors with walls, and it gets kinda of annoying.
Either way, i'm all up for research improving things over time, should have a cap probably, but improvements all the same.
4) Oh, i was thinking about only one tool/gear, so only one of your guys would be able to use it. Although you could, in this "system' of mine, pick another copy of equipment. Perhaps the box comes with 2 :)
6) Yes, actually that was what i meant, rock walls would always give the negative mood, not just recently dug ones. So yes, you'd have to carve a way to put down proper walls.
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 09:45:44 PM
Thanks for the feedback all. Taking some notes here.
Thank's for listening :)
Btw, what do you mean by not going 3d or going full 3d? You mean implementing z levels?
---
I also argue against a further penalty to cabin fever. I Agree with Jimmy, people adapt and unless you have something (claustrophobia), you could actually be happy that you are inside a bunker instead of outside.
Quote from: TheXIIILightning on September 27, 2014, 11:23:03 PM
Perhaps adding a time limit to Geothermal energy?
I myself dislike resource limitations like these. In the case of rimworld, i don't think a few month's would be enough to drain thermal energy, if you could ever do that. 10 thousand years, or 10 thousand millions years perhaps would be more plausible, unless you have some sort of geological reformulation (earthquakes).
But i'm all for giving opportunities to make you go out, or have structures in the out to help some sort of activity (we already have solar panels, farming, orbital storage), we could think of a few more, perhaps start another thread?
Quote from: marvinkosh on September 27, 2014, 11:50:20 PM
Okay well, I feel bad about building killboxes because while they're efficient, they're only that way because raiders pour into them and get nailed. And then you get their gear. Rinse well with soapy water and repeat.
Me too! I've posted about it a few weeks ago. Kill boxes are fun against hordes, but it gets old quick and feels like the only way to defend yourself (short of walling), i also feel like I'm exploiting the AI, and feel like the AI slap me back with that by sending bazzilion troops against me. Fewer enemies with more advanced tactics and options (climbing walls, harassing, stealing, etc), also stuff that steanfstr suggested, sounds like a better alternative.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 28, 2014, 10:16:24 AM
Quote from: stefanstr on September 28, 2014, 09:24:44 AM
Well, mining a hundred meters into a mountain in a matter of days in nothing if not unrealistic. In real life, tunneling through mountains requires extremely expensive equipment and can take years.
Maybe not with modern technology, but this game isnt really set with modern tech. For all we know the colonists are using nano swarms to eat the rock or whatever. Would you rather we spend hours of realtime with the game at time warp 3 just to clear a tile? You need to balance realism with fun. Not punish people for playing differently than you.
Actually the game is kinda of a tech mess, since there's people from all types of technological levels (jungle world primitives, glitterworld researches, etc). Also, if you had a nano swarms to eat rock why there are none to eat wood? or to build faster or turn raiders into dust?
I think slower mining is the way to go, or a nice start. It seems hurtful to change that because that's what the game offered from the start, so it's hard to let go. However, there should be some options that will change this. I've come with:
a) Mining is slow, like reality, and on par with the speed of other jobs
b) The game has tools.
c) Every new game, you get a starting kit containing a random or selectable amount of equipment or goods.
d) One of the possible equipment is a mining tool that carves rock at the speed we now have, so you could start a game with a gauss cannon, 50 units of medkits or a mining tool, your choice. ( the contents and amounts of the starting kit are debatable, i'm just tired of the same pistols and enfields).
e) research improves mining. So diggin-in is a sort of a branch on a defense tech tree.
"should i go shields or manned gatlings or should i get those mining tools and dig in?"
If you chose to get mining tools, you'd build makeshift accomodations outside for a while, then you move in inside. If you like staying outside, you'd research shields or other types of defenses.
There's a reason why most human dwelings are built outside : it's cheaper and easier to build and move about
And, of course, there's a reason why you have underground bases and bunkers: they are easier to defend and conceal. The price is that they are harder to built, requires more technique and investment. Give me the most advanced mining tool in the 'verse and put me to build an underground cave. I'd be under debris before you could say "MENTAL BREAKDOWN".
Hmmm
perhap's mining speed should be more affected by skill? I mean, REALLY affected. skill 3 taking realistic aeons of time and a 15 would be about what we have now?
perhap's building under rock would require a certain amount of mining skill?
This could be a new thing, skill synergies. Hmm, would have to think about it.
Regards,
Quote from: Kagemusha on September 29, 2014, 12:04:13 AM
Of course the real issue is that there is no incentive to build an external base. The main problem is that given the choice of internal or external there will always be a tendency to build internal so long as the danger of being outside is higher than the danger of being inside. This only becomes a problem when the game is being balanced for the most defensible position.
Yes, hence why we should give challenges to dwarfers or make it a technological goal.
Or, in gaming terms, building outside would be Tier 1 and inside Tier 2-3. To achieve higher tiers you need investment.
Quote from: Kagemusha on September 29, 2014, 12:04:13 AM
The last thing we need is to punish mountain bases. This, I think, we mostly agree upon. Adding some legitimate threats to a mountain base that are unique to a mountain base would be a great idea though. Balance out the risk versus reward equation. Mountain bases should be a little more difficult to build; whether this is more time spent at the start up, or more resources to make the area nicer. After all, rough cut stone is not a comfortable look.
Agreed. But then again, some will think that adding challenges to building inside are akin to nerfing/tearing down dreams.
Quote from: Kagemusha on September 29, 2014, 12:04:13 AM
-Earthquakes: I really like the idea of earthquake events. They can damage walls and possibly structures like geothermal plants and solar arrays. And if these walls are load bearing then there is the chance of roof collapses. In the case of a mountain base the threat of collapse is greater since the amount of roof is simply greater.
I really like diversity, i like events diversity and i like the idea of earthquake. But i don't want earthquakes to be the defining method to balance dwarfing, mainly because it would mean it has to be relatively regular to prose a threat or a balance per se, which would the make it annoying to build inside, and i want to keep building inside (when i want my game that way).
Quote from: Kagemusha on September 29, 2014, 12:04:13 AM
Quality over quantity: Decrease raider party sizes; increase armaments or strategies. Currently there is a feeling that we have to build up to be defensive and deal with large waves of raiders. It simply becomes too much effort to not build some manner of kill box. When we feel the need to exploit AI pathing and behaviour in order to just survive then the threat level is maybe too high.
Agreed. I've rallied this a few times by now and i'll keep doing it, like now :)
Quote from: Kagemusha on September 29, 2014, 12:04:13 AM
On the note of sieges I would also like to see the siege camps produce their own food. Or be resupplied if possible. Currently I have never had a siege that felt like a threat. I knew it would always collapse on itself (or at the select fire of my snipers).
I don't know how much of a threat should sieges be, my motto is to keep it diverse. Perhaps the raiders might just want to demoralize you or bluff to get some sort of tribute in return. Other times it should be a full blown siege, perhap's more than one camp.
I never seen them going out of food, but i wouldn't mind they leaving after food is gone.
*Every event doesn't need to end like a last stand epic shootout*
Conversely, there could be some sort of courier that would drop'em food and medkits from time to time. It could even open way to things like keeping some of your guys as skirmishers to intercept said couriers and make the siege last less.
Also there could be some kind of building called a "tent" (ohhh). A makeshift installation so the raiders could sleep inside and get treated from injuries. Of course, you as well could be able to produce tents, as earlier cover or in latter implementations, our own raiding other factions
Quote from: Kagemusha on September 29, 2014, 12:04:13 AM
Also, I am under the impression that many of these things are already going to change in the upcoming alpha but doesn't hurt to share our thoughts. It's said all the time but it cannot be said enough: Tynan, you are awesome and amazing. Keep up the good work.
Although there are a ton of duplicate suggestions, it's better to repeat yourself than to refrain from posting a cool idea.
This Tynan guy (heh), does look pretty amazing!
Indeed, the problem is that walling works and can't really be broken by any of the current events. I suggest an event that breaks walling yourself in.
This would be truly diabolical (which is why I like it so much) to players who choose to wall themselves in. Why not have enemy raiders build a kind of mobile drilling rig? If anyone has seen the cartoon Avatar: last airbender they will remember the episode where the fire nation attacked the earth kingdom walls with a giant drill.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlpFMOSloMa77ZGqIuKsPAG9s4ZlBe2gS6YPSNvGus3wf1b_IrWQ)
Obviously, what I am suggesting wouldn't nearly be to the same scale. maybe a smaller 2x3 or 3x4 drill on wheels.
But an event that got raiders to try build a portable drill that has to be built on site. It's vulnerable whilst being built, if you kill the raiders building it then you can claim it (like siege mortars). if it is complete however it'd be kinda like a modern day battering ram, slow moving and semi-resistant to bullet fire. It can be used to drill at speed through rock and walls to reach people's bases. If people wall themselves in, then they essentially wall off any chance of preventing this event and escape as well.
I like a lot of the stuff being posted, some of it repeats but more good ideas get through. id be ok with mining taking a bit longer depending on the type of rock and technology you have available. earthquakes would be neat. and Raiders will be fixed over and over again as time goes on so they will get better.
what about making walls more expensive to build underground?
I think that we should start by requiring building walls/floors underground. Currently, an underground base is simply too cheap material-wise.
At the moment, you are perfectly fine with stone walls and free smooth stone floors. Giving a strong mood debuff for naked stone walls and removing free smooth stone floors would go a long way towards balancing out costs between an outdoors base and a mountain one.
i never leave smooth stone floors, wooden is my flooring of choice. and i always line my rooms and halls with metal walls. its still easy.
Hmm im not sure what you guys get in, playing on open is kinda hard yes, but its not immpossible. And at later point very enjoyable.
There was somewhere a post/thread named "Urban Combat", it was very good in explaning how to build in the open with combat tactic design in mind. And i must admit that after reading, my only vault dweler colony is the one that i test my mod on. Everythign else go with open colony style.
Most people see it as hard since they got build up value about what best weapon is and kill boxes effectivnes.
But when it comes to the point where you got 10-20 colonists and you fight vs 500 raiders, most kill boxes will fail, best weapon wont be to good when your colonist need to stand and aim to long while getting shoot at.
As i did play quite alot of open colonies, this is what i seen.
-They are not kill box dependant(Mostly becouse such colony have many small intersection that are used as kill boxes)
-Damage to buildings/walls spreads thrugh whole colony and not only focused point, so at this point it kinda balance with vault colonies when you dont need to build walls at the start.
-Alot places to hide and alot covers(Double edge sword thrugh, but then again its a greate way to deal with base drops)
-20 Canepids < 2 guys with a bows and 2 set of doors
-More abilities to move and flank enemies, or just run away ^^
Biggest problem is managment of it all in combat, with 100-200 raiders its not so bad to dodge bullets, but 500 are kinda a problem, and in most cases i just leave the colony and attack from outside some straglers.
Now if i would have a suggetsion for it i would have 3 of them :D
-Limit number of raiders and friendlies that can be on the map at the same time.
-Detect how much of colony property is outside and how much of it is inside, and based on this add % higher number of raiders attack for outside colonies and lower for inside colonies (vaults are harder to spot), also due this it would also make higher chance of traders to visit a open colony and visitors.
-Small simple que for 2-3 actions, something like "pop up thrugh door"=>"take a shot on that guy"=>"go back thrugh doors".
Quote from: Encode on September 29, 2014, 03:46:05 AM
the focus of this topic is to 'entice' pple to want to play in the open, not nerf the game so badly that pple don't have a choice in the matter, which this game is NOT about.
The focus of the topic, and i'm quoting the OP here is to "start a thread where we could discuss how the game would have to change to entice us to play more open play styles."
Everyone is doing exactly that, discussing. Change could mean nerfing or buffing, replacing or reducing, adding or exlucing.
Quote from: Encode on September 29, 2014, 03:46:05 AM
for folks who like the open, they will pick the plains, and those who want more cover/back support will go for hills and mountains. please don't discuss further on how to make these options useless. thanks!
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Everyone just want their share of the fun.
No, thank you! :)
Quote from: Encode on September 29, 2014, 03:46:05 AM
as of now, it doesn't take long for a small number of raiders to knock down on doors or walls even to get to us, and if the option to have our backs into the mountain taken away or the proposed increased difficulty or danger thereof to dig into them just makes it too restricting to say the least, when RW itself isn't going Z-level in this century or the next, so a maze of hide-n-seek isn't really possible, all for the chance of surviving the crazy amount of raiders as we bloat in colony resource/wealth over time. i certainly hope that's what everyone is aiming towards... surviving.
if you think it's bad not digging in because raiders come not before long, think about building outside, that's how unbalanced it is now for building outside. No one is trying to "take away" anything, everyone loves to build stuff, be it outside or into mountains, but it has to be balanced. The goal of the game is to survive, but the goal of the player is to have fun. Fun, in this case, for me, means you (should) have more than one choice to build, aside digging a hole in a mountain, and digging a hole in a mountain should have it's challenges as well, because a game without challenge and conflict is a boring game.
Quote from: TinnedEpic on September 29, 2014, 04:03:10 AM
This would be truly diabolical (which is why I like it so much) to players who choose to wall themselves in. Why not have enemy raiders build a kind of mobile drilling rig?
I like the way you think >:)
It makes sense that, since raiders can drop from outer space with orbital pods right into your backyard, they would employ such evil devices to counter vaults.
It goes hand in hand with how we want raiders to become more adaptable and smart about your play style, instead of using just sheer force.
BUT, it can't be a regular thing, we don't want 200 raiders popping in into your dungeon every once in a while, just as we don't want 200 raiders dropping into our garden colony and ruining the perfect grass. Perhap's they are part of a larger force waiting outside, they have some kind of mission like destroying the generators or batteries, or stealing supplies and leaving?
Quote from: stefanstr on September 29, 2014, 09:27:51 AM
I think that we should start by requiring building walls/floors underground. Currently, an underground base is simply too cheap material-wise.
At the moment, you are perfectly fine with stone walls and free smooth stone floors. Giving a strong mood debuff for naked stone walls and removing free smooth stone floors would go a long way towards balancing out costs between an outdoors base and a mountain one.
Yes! That's exactly my point, thanks for being more plainspoken than me. Building into mouintains is actually CHEAPER than building outside, where it would be, short of living in a cave, all the way around. You have to beat hardness, avoid cave ins, have proper foundations, etc. These at least should require someone with a 7 on mining or constructing (possibly both).
To build outside you need to chopp wood, produce stone blocks, mine metal, spend on floors and walls, whilst dwarfing you just pop holes and dust up the floor a little and voila.
The fact that you need way more materials and these increase colony wealth just adds insult to injury (more wealth = more raiders)
At least building proper walls should be needed.
---
Jimmy: I understand, that's what i do too, but it's still optional.
mrofa: The impossibility depends on the director and challenge intensity, the point is that building outside adds about 20-40% to the difficulty you chose.
I like the concept of urban warfare, i kinda have to do it when playing outside, but the game needs some more tools to make it happen better, such as embrasures, shoot through windows (if we had windows), some sort of automatic behavior to seek cover (think xcom cautious, defensive, agressive). Plus the AI shouldn't know where you pawns are, i don't know if the game would need a fog of war for that, that way you could have some pretty intense fightings, blitzkrieg style, house to house, setting ambushes and fleeing checkpoints.
Quote from: mrofa on September 29, 2014, 10:09:16 AM
-Detect how much of colony property is outside and how much of it is inside, and based on this add % higher number of raiders attack for outside colonies and lower for inside colonies (vaults are harder to spot), also due this it would also make higher chance of traders to visit a open colony and visitors.
I like this, it makes sense (see, i don't hate building in mountains, i just like things that makes sense :P).
But that % would be for chance of attack right? not raider numbers? I mean, they could launch a few probing attacks, but once they realize "hey, there's some hi-tech vault there keeping us out, i wonder what they are keeping in, must be really valuable... WE WANT IT!", bam, full blown assault.
Quote from: mrofa on September 29, 2014, 10:09:16 AM
-Small simple que for 2-3 actions, something like "pop up thrugh door"=>"take a shot on that guy"=>"go back thrugh doors".
Could work, but might be too much micromanagement to make it worthwhile, specially if you have a large number of colonists. I like the automatic behavior idea more. Set it to defensive it would look for the closest defensive position (wall corner, sandbag, whatever). Set it to agressive it would stay where it is and spray bullets. Set it to coward and it would try and flee from battle (but still take pot shots once in a while).
Regards,
I think there are some improvements to the sieging AI that would help. Having Mortars preferentially target other mortars, turrets, power sources, and doors/walls over the nearest colonist would make it harder to game. A regular resupply of besiegers would also help prevent the waiting for them to starve/go insane tactic, although attacks to destroy their food supply would still be possible. Perhaps they should have a drop-beacon which allows them to get resupplied until destroyed. Enemies that learn where the kill boxes are and possibly choose to counter mine to avoid them would also be useful. Allowing mortar fire/earthquakes to trigger cave ins would also be nice. The chance for cave-ins should be proportional to the size of the room, so large rooms should be more vulnerable. Cave monsters/mechanoids that could be unleashed by digging too deep would also be a good way to balance. I would also consider eliminating hydroponics. Without hydroponics, all bases would eventually need to access the outside to restock their food supplies, which seems more reasonable then trying to force them outside for power.
Removing hydroponics also crossed my mind. Or at least nerfing it (make it further down the research tree and/or make it LESS efficient than normal farming).
Some of the ideas in the recent posts that I especially like:
-automatic behavior patterns for drafted colonists (defensive, aggressive, etc.). I think that the raiders would also benefit from that addition, as they would get some more intelligent behaviors
-improvements to sieges - it has to be the most common suggestion in this thread: make mortars target power supplies/other mortars/turrets instead of colonists
-giving every raid (or at least some raids) a specific purpose: they are here to... (destroy the power generators, steal the food, burn down crops... you name it).
I support the idea of slowing down the initial speed of mining quite a bit, and then having several levels of research to speed it up, with the top speed being something more like what we see now.
I also support the idea of making geothermal energy a bit less reliable. Not by the limited timespan method that was suggested in this thread, but via random events where geothermal vents stop producing steam for a period of time. In the real world, geothermal energy isn't constantly reliable - geysers have been known to stop working for extended periods of time as changes occur underground, and then suddenly start up again. I would say that such events should be less common than eclipses ... but should also last a bit longer than eclipses. Perhaps the onset of such events could even be coupled with the introduction of earthquakes to give the impression of an active geology at work in the world?
On the idea of encouraging open-air colony development as opposed to discouraging mountain lairs, it seems to me that one of the main things that would be more difficult for a walled-off colony is trade with one's neighbors. (I know that I'd have a great deal more trepidation about visiting a reclusive, walled-in colony where I have to walk between machine gun nests even to just say "hi", as opposed to one that's out in the open.) How about introducing better relations and additional trade opportunities for open-air colonies? Perhaps enable some small quantities of trade with the groups that wander through the map on occasion? If they have access to the heart of a colony, rather than just hanging out in the killbox entryway, it seems likely that they would consider the open-air colony to be a more friendly place than the shut-ins of the mountain colony up the road, and hence would bring some stuff along that could be traded? E.g., perhaps they'd be willing to buy some raw materials, or sell some medicine or even a decent weapon now and then?
nerfing hydroponics is a bad idea, its actually supposed to be more efficient. Just more costly to maintain. maybe if water or fertilizer get implemented at some point.
what about cavein distances? right now the default is 5, more than that and you get stuff falling. what if regular rock had a distance of 2, wooden walls 3, stone 4, metal 5, and any stronger materials do more. this way you can still do the dwarf but you got to be more careful and line everything with metal walls. i do this anyways but it would slow things down if you havent much metal.
Anarak
The % would be only for the ammount of attacks and not the number, idea of this is to have some pros and cons for both vault and open colony.
Open colony is easier to spot and easier to access, thats why there will be more attack but then again you get more visitors and more traders.
On the other hand you get a vault which are build to be safe and in most cases atleast a bit hidden, thus this would be less times spoted by bands of raiders, but the same will be with traders and travlers.
On that note im still not sure if it wouldnt be better to have that the stuff that is in the open or under mountain also needs to be in home zone, this would give a player kinda versality on that front atleast a bit, and when you colony is destroyed and you would need to run you could just cancel the home zone on the destroyed one and built your self a vault, that would give you better chance of rebuilding/surviving.
As for macros, they would help for managing larger number of colonists in battles.
Reading about hydroponics, it's actually cheaper, even on water consumption, at least some of the many types of hydroponics. The investment to build inside would be spending on sunlamps. Plus, i want more things into RW, not fewer :)
I support geothermal instability. It doesn't even need to be related to event, it just constantly flow random amounts of power, a further incentive to build batteries or have back-up power.
vaults = less encounters, more defense
open = more encounters, more trade
seems like a nice trade off. Open colonies would also get more immigration from other camps, should it be implemented.
mrofa: not sure i understand the home zone bit, care to elaborate?
Jimmy: Makes sense and would go hand-in-hand with having to build walls in the inner side of rocks (to improve mood).
There would be two things on this: roof type and support columns.
roof type depends on the wall type used to make the room (the majority of the wall material at least), so wood roofs would support/prevent cave-ins for a less number of squares than a metal one would. Then you would have to build some columns to support bigger rooms, i.e, a single piece of wall would increase the radius of the supporting roof for x squares.
I think everyone is missing the real problem here. I think the lack of defensive choice in turrets, their weakness to explosives, and their high cost to build are too blame. Currently I play on extreme and I only play outdoor colonies. Now I can survive attacks by big hordes of raiders and mechs. I do this by creating many layers of cover and turrets, but when faced with enemies that out-range my turrets and/or have explosives, they wreck everything pretty quickly. It is possible to survive equipping everyone with M24's and micromanaging to fall back through the cover and it is really fun and interesting to play actually.
The big problem however is how much is costs to rebuild the defence and the lack of metal around, so after a few attacks it's really hard to sustain enough defence due to the high cost of turrets to the point it's hardly even worth building them, at the moment I only build turrets to draw fire while I snipe the enemy. Not how it should be in my eyes.
Sieges are too hard to kill at the moment, when they are far away it's hard to get colonists to attack without them having mental breakdowns on big maps. We need a way to them to sustain their needs away from the colony, we have bedspots which are good, but we need some way of taking food reserve to camp out around the siege.
Also sieges are normally full of snipers so it's incredibly hard to do anything to stop them without getting killed straight away, which at the moment results in me not even bothering to try and kill the sieges. I literally stay in base and repair everything until they starve to death, not very fun.
The drone ships are ok but again I need some way to sustain myself out in the map otherwise I simply don't have the time to do much before my colonists break down.
Quote from: jaeden25 on September 29, 2014, 05:10:49 PM
I think everyone is missing the real problem here. I think the lack of defensive choice in turrets, their weakness to explosives, and their high cost to build are too blame.
Not THE real problem, but one of the problems nonetheless. It's not the real problem because if you had better turrets to make it easier to defend open colonies, it would make it even easier to defend inside ones.
It should be one of these: Or open colonies get as many advantages and drawbacks than mountain ones OR building into a mountain is a technological or economical investment. Currently it's neither.
Quote from: jaeden25 on September 29, 2014, 05:10:49 PM
Sieges are too hard to kill at the moment, when they are far away it's hard to get colonists to attack without them having mental breakdowns on big maps. We need a way to them to sustain their needs away from the colony, we have bedspots which are good, but we need some way of taking food reserve to camp out around the siege.
Like other things it depends on the AI director and challenge intensity, but i agree with the mental breakdowns and supplies.
I already suggested that there should be an "ADRENALINE" mood buff whenever the pawn is within some radius of an enemy and even a small buff when it's drafted.
As per the supplies, I'm together with those who want a (better) slot system, be it general purpose slots or a tool slot or carry slot. Wanna go on the offensive? Pick a few provisions and hit the road. There could be even a new type of cookable/producible food that lasts longer and tastes like nutrient paste and is used in such incursions, perhaps even if someday we get to raid other camps as well.
Overall i think the moral systems need a lot of reworking, i have a few ideas myself but let's wait for 7 and see what Ty has been cooking up.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 29, 2014, 04:13:11 PM
what about cavein distances? right now the default is 5, more than that and you get stuff falling. what if regular rock had a distance of 2, wooden walls 3, stone 4, metal 5, and any stronger materials do more. this way you can still do the dwarf but you got to be more careful and line everything with metal walls. i do this anyways but it would slow things down if you havent much metal.
This idea is excellent. I also line my caves with metal walls, mostly for the power situation and maybe a little obsessive compulsive behaviour.
I feel that there should be a requirement for greater structural support when digging underground (well, undermountain). This way the cave systems would inherently be a little tighter and narrower unless resources were expended to bolster the structural integrity of the caves.
If you check the change log, Tynan has added some end-game enemies. Hopefully this means less swarms. :)
Agreed the main reason people are choosing to dig into mountains, walls themselves off and build kill-boxes is because they don't have the strength or skill to deal with these 200+ raiders. It's not because people simply don't wanna build outside it's just that it basically ends the game earlier. Atm you can't sustain a colony indefinitely. Some people just can't micromanage to that extent. I know I can't, so unless I play basebuilder or casual I don't often survive beyond a 6 months to a year building in the open.
Quote from: Anarak on September 29, 2014, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: TinnedEpic on September 29, 2014, 04:03:10 AM
This would be truly diabolical (which is why I like it so much) to players who choose to wall themselves in. Why not have enemy raiders build a kind of mobile drilling rig?
I like the way you think >:)
It makes sense that, since raiders can drop from outer space with orbital pods right into your backyard, they would employ such evil devices to counter vaults.
It goes hand in hand with how we want raiders to become more adaptable and smart about your play style, instead of using just sheer force.
BUT, it can't be a regular thing, we don't want 200 raiders popping in into your dungeon every once in a while, just as we don't want 200 raiders dropping into our garden colony and ruining the perfect grass. Perhap's they are part of a larger force waiting outside, they have some kind of mission like destroying the generators or batteries, or stealing supplies and leaving?
Exactly my thinking! It'd be awesome to have a smarter A.I. More raid types too that didn't involve 'Zerg rush' tactics. Nothing against it though, zerg rush is classic. But if we're talking about getting people into the habit of building outdoors then we really need to consider A.I tactics that 'break' the walling in system. A smarter A.I means that we can decrease the swarm sizes as well.
-Have A.I's who's tactic's change according to what they are after.
-Have A.I's who c
-Let the A.I use explosives to bust down walls/doors instead of punching.
-Let the A.I bust down walls if their only plausible form of entry is to cross over sandbags.
-Increase the amount of people an outlander or tribal colony will send you to deal with enemy raids.
*Fix the opinions system, so we can start feasibly using Allies to help with raids. xD
-Plug in more diplomacy options.
-Pay tribute as a means to maintain the peace with some raiders.
If you want a means of enticing players into the open, have structures that require you to be in the open:
Watch towers - buildings that can house up to 2 colonists that gives them additional range and cover.
Trenches - Dig trenches in soft soil/sand so your colonists can take cover.
Windows - To shoot out off.
Roofs - To shoot off of.
Livestock - Tame some wild animals, they can't go underground because they need grass to survive. Build paddocks with fences to contain them.
Horses - have a rare, ridable wild animal that you can ride around to move faster and carry more (even ridden in combat if you liked). But these animals could not be taken underground at all.
Lightning rods - Gives an enormous power boost to recharge your batteries, any remaining power is rooted into the ground to prevent overcharging.
Or make some dangers of living underground:
Gas leaks - It's a common problem, why do you think they take the canary into the mines?
Earthquakes - infrequent and can cause cave-ins.
Necessity for water - Have rivers your colonists can drink and wash in or collect water from rain. (bit iffy on this one but eh)
Get dirtier - Doesn't matter if you plate the entire area with metal, make it so your colonists can pick up dirt from the rock roofs they are living under. They get dirty just being in a cave. Alternatively ties into water and hygiene, if colonists get dirty or are around dirty people for too long they get happiness debuffs. Being underground all the time can make you dirtier. (bit iffy on this one as well)
Events that happen:
-Rare animal migrations, could be useful animals that you can tame or get resources from that otherwise don't exist in the area.
-Decrease the likelihood of a faulty conduit, this is one of the main reasons people don't like solar power.
-Happiness events, Like seeing a kind of Aurora during some eclipses. Just some events that happen outside that make colonists happy for a week or something.
Went on a tangent but I hope this is a good contribution to the topic. :P
Quote from: TinnedEpic on September 30, 2014, 12:59:28 AM
Agreed the main reason people are choosing to dig into mountains, walls themselves off and build kill-boxes is because they don't have the strength or skill to deal with these 200+ raiders. It's not because people simply don't wanna build outside it's just that it basically ends the game earlier. Atm you can't sustain a colony indefinitely. Some people just can't micromanage to that extent. I know I can't, so unless I play basebuilder or casual I don't often survive beyond a 6 months to a year building in the open.
Insane micro is not very fun at all for most people, no. That's part of the problem - another is that a real-time strategy game does
not lend itself well to X-COM style battles against forces which are vastly superior in number. (Not to mention vastly superior in skill, which is what happens when you're forced to draft every tom, dick and harry in the settlement.)
QuoteIt makes sense that, since raiders can drop from outer space with orbital pods right into your backyard, they would employ such evil devices to counter vaults.
No, it really doesn't. If they had magic drills that can go through rock like that, they'd be much better off drilling into the mountain themselves to get a metric assload of metal to sell off for money for which they had to fire off precisely zero shots.
Raiders raid because they have relatively few resources and they want to claim those which others have. Raider, for those reasons, do
not like to attack well-fortified positions. The Raiders in RimWorld, as it stands, aren't "Raiders" in any sense of the word, they're Borderlands Psychos who only want to kill people.
Which, you know... Is legitimate, but they're not raiders. Raiders shouldn't even
look at a well-armed, well-defended settlement which is so paranoid that every tom, dick and harry goes about their daily lives with a military pulse rifle strapped around their chest, in an underground bunker, an aboveground castle, or an aboveground castle with killboxes leading to an underground bunker with more killboxes. That's not a raiding target, that's a suicide meatgrinder - which is exactly what happens. My personal strategy has always been (bear in mind it's old, I stopped playing when it became clear that Tynan was just pulling out stick after stick to nerf all the effective defensive strategies so that players inevitably die to doomraids,) to use craptons of mines on concrete roads (that they inevitably path down because it's easier)
lined with graves. When the majority of the arseholes are in the suicide path, I blow the mines, which (1) killed the baddies, and (2) emptied the graves, which the now-dead baddies were shoveled into. Collect the guns, rearm the mines, rinse, lather, repeat.
You'd have to be an utter moron to fall for that trap, but you'd have to be equally moronic to think that under any circumstances attacking people who are so paranoidally xenophobic as to create such a trap was any kind of a good idea.
QuoteIt goes hand in hand with how we want raiders to become more adaptable and smart about your play style, instead of using just sheer force.
You know what a smart raider does when he sees a settlement of 30+ people armed to the teeth and heavily entrenched, ready for a fight? He decides to move on and go look for a settlement of 5-10 people who are
not armed to the teeth and heavily entrenched, ready for a fight.
Attacking an entrenched position is not the domain of self-interested, profit-motivated highwaymen and bandits, it's the domain of people who wield political power and seek to exert/expand their influence. So it shouldn't be raiders attacking a large settlement, it should be people who (a) feel threatened by you, or (b) want to conquer you. (a) should be reduced by
not hostilely attacking/hijacking travelers and by not sending out raids of your own (if and when it becomes possible,) and (b) should be reduced by either signing up with the biggest, baddest mofo on the block and enjoying his protection but paying him regular taxes, not doing that but buying off anybody who comes 'round with an army (Raiders should also be dispatchable in this way,) or (c) repulsing enough attacks that the locals are forced to concede that you have become a local power in your own right and attacking you is Not To Be Taken Lightly.
QuoteBUT, it can't be a regular thing, we don't want 200 raiders popping in into your dungeon every once in a while, just as we don't want 200 raiders dropping into our garden colony and ruining the perfect grass. Perhap's they are part of a larger force waiting outside, they have some kind of mission like destroying the generators or batteries, or stealing supplies and leaving?
200 raider doomstacks is just crazy, unless we can get the colony that large. I mean, of course, raiders should be glad to opportunistically attack anything they can get away with attacking, like if you left a steam generator out in the open. They could demolish it, loot the metal and run off, satisfied that they got a good haul while you all hid in your fort. On the other hand, is it a good haul if they have to fight their way past half a dozen turrets inside a baffled wall which negates their snipers' range advantages and which thus ensures they take casualties?
Raiders should be
very casualty-averse. They should evaluate the reward of attacking you versus the risk of casualties against a set,
reasonable number of raiders, not simply escalate until entire huge armies are zerg-rushing you. 30-40 should be the absolute high-end maximum of raider armies, and if the risk of engaging is high (IE, they estimate, using whatever metric they have, including the number of hostiles you've killed divided by the number of encounters it took to kill them, how likely it is that those among them will die before they can grab what they want and leg it,) they just won't even attack. Honestly, even estimating 25% losses and being okay with that is bordering on psychotic, but I'd call that reasonable for gameplay.
(For a good example of this, imagine get some of your friends and family together and go stick up your friendly local mafia bagman. He's armed, I guarantee, and probably with something nasty like a .44. Sure, you can kill him, but at least one of you is going to die before he does. How many people do you have to have in your mugging party before a casualty becomes an acceptable risk? 2? 4? 8? 16?)
QuoteExactly my thinking! It'd be awesome to have a smarter A.I. More raid types too that didn't involve 'Zerg rush' tactics. Nothing against it though, zerg rush is classic. But if we're talking about getting people into the habit of building outdoors then we really need to consider A.I tactics that 'break' the walling in system. A smarter A.I means that we can decrease the swarm sizes as well.
Zergrush should be restricted to animals, zealots and armies, but it shouldn't go away completely. On the other hand, it should be really,
really easy to defeat zergrushes with prepared defensive positions.
Quote-Have A.I's who's tactic's change according to what they are after.
They really shouldn't just be aiming to kill everybody, unless for some reason they want to claim the fortress for themselves or they're psychotic BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD types. Everybody hostile should have an objective, whether it's using the threat of violence to extract concessions of money or resources from you (and they should be willing to try this if you have a history of paying, even if there's no way in hell they're actually going to attack and will just back down and skulk off tail-'twixt-legs if you call their bluff), grabbing food from your stockpiles (because they're desperately hungry, and you could just buy them off by sharing food with them,) grabbing metal from your stockpiles (share it to buy them off,) tapping your power lines to charge portable batteries (which you could buy them off by charging them out of your own batteries/generation power,) etc.
Quote-Let the A.I use explosives to bust down walls/doors instead of punching.
Agreed, but the AI should
not be able to bust down walls/powered doors by punching, unless the AI in question is (a) a muffalo, or (b) a battering ram/siege engine. Raider type enemies would need sappers/grenadiers to blow down walls, and if you kill those, they bugger off. The player also needs embrasures to build up a good pillbox.
Quote-Let the A.I bust down walls if their only plausible form of entry is to cross over sandbags.
Line walls with sandbags/rubble = AI broken? (And it's not a bad idea to do so anyway. I line my walls with concrete to prevent the spread of fires from outside, and I line the concrete with rubble so raiders don't path over it, and instead use my roads. Which are lined with hot explosive DEATH. And graveyards.)
After a certain point of defensive preparations, raiders should just say "not worth it" and move on. If they have to blast down more than one wall and climb over a field of jagged rocks, crashed spaceship junk and sandbags to get
to those walls, they should just pack it in and call it a day.
Quote-Increase the amount of people an outlander or tribal colony will send you to deal with enemy raids.
*Fix the opinions system, so we can start feasibly using Allies to help with raids. xD
-Plug in more diplomacy options.
-Pay tribute as a means to maintain the peace with some raiders.
Good, good. I've been arguing for "just buy them off" as an option for a while. Or hell, pay raiders to go harass someone
else.
QuoteIf you want a means of enticing players into the open, have structures that require you to be in the open:
See? Carrot! This is what I'm talking about.
QuoteWatch towers - buildings that can house up to 2 colonists that gives them additional range and cover.
Tynan is opposed to this, for some reason, which is a shame. Watch towers allowing my snipers to drastically outrange enemy snipers, or my machine-gunners to equal their range, and thus rain a fusilade of fire down on raiders before they ever get the chance to return fire (especially if I can surround the watchtower with walls and sandbags and they can still fire over it,) would get me out in the open a lot more.
QuoteTrenches - Dig trenches in soft soil/sand so your colonists can take cover.
No reason you
can't carve a trench out of stone, it'd just take longer. I'd say it should be added, mind you, but not artificially locked off from stone floors for no reason.
QuoteWindows - To shoot out off.
Windows yes - having windows looking out of your bedroom onto nice scenery should be a big morale boost, and you could take cover by them and fire out from them.
You should also have embrasures, which are
not fantastically fun to look out of (though a minor bit moreso than bare wall,) and which offer
incredible cover whilst still letting you fire out of them. Line the outside with sandbags/barbed wire and you can have yourself a WWII style pillbox.
QuoteRoofs - To shoot off of.
I agree again, but Tynan doesn't want to go full 3d, Dwarf Fortress style. Sadly.
QuoteLivestock - Tame some wild animals, they can't go underground because they need grass to survive. Build paddocks with fences to contain them.
If you can build hydroponic farms, you can build hydroponic grass farms to feed your animals. But it ought to be more of a PitA than just paddocking them outside, of course, and raiding for these tamed animals should be something a lot of folks might be interested in doing.
Of course, you'd have to make them
very useful, what with the extra exposure - raids for your animals which simply would not happen if you didn't have any, a paddock full of your valuable animals and the Rimworld's legendarily inflammable grass is a great recipe to watch a lot of your valuable tame animals go up in literal smoke, etc. Basically, they'd have to crap out money, fart rainbows (of happiness,) and piss heroin before it'd be remotely worth it for a RimWorld player to go to the trouble and expense.
QuoteHorses - have a rare, ridable wild animal that you can ride around to move faster and carry more (even ridden in combat if you liked). But these animals could not be taken underground at all.
This would be nice, I'll admit, but I'd rather build dune buggies and PMVs in underground machine shops than deal with the hassle that comes with paddocking animals (see above,) except maybe in the very early game, if a horse wandered by. Also, you can totally ride a horse underground if the ceilings are high enough, and it ought to be able to make them high enough.
(You want to know what might be nice? Mounting muffalo - they're huge and powerful, and aggressive, which would make them good mounts if they can be tamed. Sure, they aren't terribly fast, but they should soak up damage from the rider and maul anyone who gets close.)
QuoteLightning rods - Gives an enormous power boost to recharge your batteries, any remaining power is rooted into the ground to prevent overcharging.
This... Eh, I'm not sure. You'd need some kind of real supertech to do that, and given that we all know how well the power conduit construction in RimWorld handles sudden power surges (hint: about as well as water balloon would handle the surge of black water of the New York Sewer System discharging everything into it at once,) that seems like a bad idea.
QuoteOr make some dangers of living underground:
RimWorld really,
really has too many sticks already, including the huge sticks which drive players who are not looking for a micromanagey real-time-pause combat sim, into underground bunkers. Outside castles used to be good enough, then the mortars came out. Do you just want RimWorld to be a painful exercise in kicking the player in the teeth because no matter what they do, the RNG is going to screw them?
QuoteGas leaks - It's a common problem, why do you think they take the canary into the mines?
Proper ventilation can sort that out, making sure that gas pockets don't happen anywhere that's ventilated. It could be a risk, but one that could be mitigated by proper construction.
QuoteEarthquakes - infrequent and can cause cave-ins.
Yes, because what RimWorld
really needs is
more ways for the RNG to say "Have you got the time? To
get stuffed!"
(That was sarcasm.)
Honestly, this would just be a massive pain in the ass.
QuoteNecessity for water - Have rivers your colonists can drink and wash in or collect water from rain. (bit iffy on this one but eh)
Plumbing isn't a thing, I guess? Nor are underground springs, or condensing the water that's coming out of our many and copious steam generators?
QuoteGet dirtier - Doesn't matter if you plate the entire area with metal, make it so your colonists can pick up dirt from the rock roofs they are living under. They get dirty just being in a cave.
How about not, because caves which have been prepared for living aren't any dirtier than your average dwelling. Sure, going out into the uncut stone areas might get you grimy, but that's what sending all of your laborers to smooth it all out is for. Or just putting down metal walls and flooring, which ought to include metal roofs to boot.
QuoteAlternatively ties into water and hygiene, if colonists get dirty or are around dirty people for too long they get happiness debuffs. Being underground all the time can make you dirtier. (bit iffy on this one as well)
How about no, because you know what frontier life tends to involve? A lot of getting dirty. Sure, maybe some delicate glitterworlder might be this way, but someone who's been trained as a miner or is from a medieval world is unlikely to be overly bothered by getting a little dirty.
QuoteEvents that happen:
-Rare animal migrations, could be useful animals that you can tame or get resources from that otherwise don't exist in the area.
Food. Leather. Bone. These are the resources one tends to get from animals. Manure and milk if you don't kill them right away. And I suppose you could maybe render some explosives out of boomrat corpses, heh.
Quote-Decrease the likelihood of a faulty conduit, this is one of the main reasons people don't like solar power.
Decrease it to the tune of removing it from the entire game. This event mages me ragequit when it happens. It's RimWorld saying "Hey. You know you've done the smart thing and banked up battery power for those long solar eclipses so you don't have to shut off the lights and the turrets? FUCK YOU!"
Quote-Happiness events, Like seeing a kind of Aurora during some eclipses. Just some events that happen outside that make colonists happy for a week or something.
THIS! This is what I'm talking about. Pure carrot, a reason to want your mooks to go outside, possibly up to and including drafting them all and sending them scurrying out into the moonlight if it lasts a reasonable amount of time.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on September 30, 2014, 02:12:20 AM
No, it really doesn't. If they had magic drills that can go through rock like that, they'd be much better off drilling into the mountain themselves to get a metric assload of metal to sell off for money for which they had to fire off precisely zero shots.
Except it really does it. The game already has magical drills, the ones you start with. Seeing as how raiders, or whatever you wanna call them, have the same diverse background and technology as your own, you could say that: since they have access to orbital drops, they would have access to some sort of mobile driller, its even like a driller is lower tech than dropping from space (or however you wanna imagine it).
It's not magical, they pop unannounced but they didn't teletransported there, the movement part is just omitted from the player (as is the orbital drop).
But sure, just as some research path could prevent/help against orbital drops (AA guns, shields, radars to give you a head start ), you would get the same treats against drills (sensors, armored floors and walls, better doors...).
But i do agree on the purpose of raiders, I've been trying to think of some sort of goal or object of valor that a raider faction would want from you,. Probably would need a bunch, for reply-ability. Stuff like dropping near the crashsite of a ship (or your own ship), the only thing with a unobtanium reactor, capable of taking you off the planet. Else yes, they would be just psychos.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on September 30, 2014, 02:12:20 AM
200 raider doomstacks is just crazy, unless we can get the colony that large. I mean, of course, raiders should be glad to opportunistically attack anything they can get away with attacking, like if you left a steam generator out in the open. (...)
I don't know if you are agreeing with me or not, either way, toning down numbers and making things beliavable is half my discourse.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on September 30, 2014, 02:12:20 AM
Quote from: TinnedEpic on September 30, 2014, 12:59:28 AM
-Let the A.I use explosives to bust down walls/doors instead of punching.
Agreed, but the AI should not be able to bust down walls/powered doors by punching, unless the AI in question is (a) a muffalo, or (b) a battering ram/siege engine. Raider type enemies would need sappers/grenadiers to blow down walls, and if you kill those, they bugger off. The player also needs embrasures to build up a good pillbox.
That's about the other half of my discourse. But i'd want a better armor system implemented (see my previous comments, if you feel like).
TinnedEpic:
Quote from: TinnedEpic on September 30, 2014, 12:59:28 AM
Gas leaks - It's a common problem, why do you think they take the canary into the mines?
Was about to post that. Even without gas leaks, living into a mountain has a very stale air, so you'd probably need some ventilation shafts or air purifiers objects (think of a one block thingy with a radius that would negate a mood modifier :stale air/ bad air. I like that because its a drawback that can easily be surpasses by some techonology, unlike other events.
Also, the lack of sun would reduce vitamin D, immunity and serotonin levels. Serotonin is already covered by cabin fever, but perhaps once diseases are implemented, living inside would allow for some very specific diseases? Increasing your chance to contract some? Certainly it's not the most hygienical solution to stay in confined spaces with several people. Perhaps diseases can infect others if they are touching all the time (cramped corridors).
Quote from: TinnedEpic on September 30, 2014, 12:59:28 AM
-Happiness events, Like seeing a kind of Aurora during some eclipses. Just some events that happen outside that make colonists happy for a week or something. Quote
This is golden. We should totally make a post about it and have fun listing happy events :D
The main problem, for me, of the "zerg rush" of pirates, is the total unrealism. You are a pirate, you want to steal from someone weak, to gain a profit; if you have to kill someone in the process, so be it. You are not a professional soldier (well, some character are but that's not the point). Charging toward a MG nest is unnerving even for the most seasoned war veteran, but yet they come, bullets in all limbs, and destroy the automated turret. How come? They should be pis*ing themselves to approach it, and run for their life. And I won't even talk about mortar fire. :o
With diseases being introduced, the lack of sun and protein (meat or survival meals) should increase the probability of going sick. Or to make it a carrot: meat and sun should decrease the probability of going sick. ;) This is a great idea, guys!
Also, I think the key thing we are all agreeing on is that raiders/visitors need to have some purpose to their visits. Two followup thoughts to that:
- why not give the raiders the ability to do some of the same jobs as the colonists? If raiders were able to mine through the mountain, we couldn't seal the entrance shut and wait for them to go away... Because they would mine their way into our base.
- I think it would be really cool if the diplomacy screen included things that the specific faction needs. E.g., "these raiders are short on metal". You could buy them off with some of your metal (and have them bugger off for a while) or if you don't, they would show up, trying to steal some of your metal, or maybe they would establish an outpost and try to mine on your territory (playing off of my idea above) unless you scare them off... The game would then revolve more around resource management and less around tower defense.
Another thought I have: Tynan keeps talking about "endgame". I think he *wants* the game to be over in a year or two. You either die or flee. I am not sure I like that. Currently, I feel we have the choice between difficulty levels that are boring/don't provide enough challenge or levels that will ultimately screw you over. I think that Phoebe should be reengineered to stack up the challenges more until she detects that your wealth has gone down significantly. Then she should let you rebuild for a while. I.e., she should be more like Cassandra, but without the ultimate downfall that Cassandra always seems to end in. I would love to play the same colony for even 10 years having a progression like that. What do you guys think?
Quote from: stefanstr on September 30, 2014, 04:58:25 AM
Another thought I have: Tynan keeps talking about "endgame". I think he *wants* the game to be over in a year or two. You either die or flee. I am not sure I like that. Currently, I feel we have the choice between difficulty levels that are boring/don't provide enough challenge or levels that will ultimately screw you over. I think that Phoebe should be reengineered to stack up the challenges more until she detects that your wealth has gone down significantly. Then she should let you rebuild for a while. I.e., she should be more like Cassandra, but without the ultimate downfall that Cassandra always seems to end in. I would love to play the same colony for even 10 years having a progression like that. What do you guys think?
That's the spirit! That's the game I want! I love it!
Don't read too much into "endgame" - it might just be that point at which there's nothing new left to throw at the player.
Quote from: marvinkosh on September 30, 2014, 07:18:46 AM
Don't read too much into "endgame" - it might just be that point at which there's nothing new left to throw at the player.
Even if I didn't see a single post by Tynan, I would have come to the same conclusion based on how things play out in-game.
I think the raider AI will get improved. hes already stated how difficult it is to work with AI and get it working right. The zerg rush mentality is just the basic framework. He added sieges. He will add more, but the rest of the game needs love too and thats where his focus has been, as it should be. he mentioned before that hes taking notes with this thread so even if the next few updates dont do much with raiders they will be on his list. we can have a whole thread dedicated to raider AI, maybe those of you who had lots to say on them should make one. lets focus this thread on other means, and assume for the moment that raiders remain the same, or will be improved in time. yes i know they are related but they are both big topics.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 30, 2014, 08:44:32 AM
I think the raider AI will get improved. hes already stated how difficult it is to work with AI and get it working right. The zerg rush mentality is just the basic framework. He added sieges. He will add more, but the rest of the game needs love too and thats where his focus has been, as it should be. he mentioned before that hes taking notes with this thread so even if the next few updates dont do much with raiders they will be on his list. we can have a whole thread dedicated to raider AI, maybe those of you who had lots to say on them should make one. lets focus this thread on other means, and assume for the moment that raiders remain the same, or will be improved in time. yes i know they are related but they are both big topics.
I have to disagree with you here.
Firstly, if one of the main problems leading to people hiding under the mountain is the simplistic AI, it fully belongs in this thread.
Secondly, the AI tends to be the orphan child of game development. It is complicated to implement, so it is easy for designers to put it away for some undetermined future moment. It is less visible than moar content, so players are easily persuaded that they can live without it if they get a cool new gizmo instead.
I cannot stand by that. Cool new toys are very easy for mods to add and implement (examples in RimWorld are aplenty.) Programming better AI can only be done by the actual game designer and is of paramount importance to the game experience.
If anything, this thread proves that the AI needs some love. I think that sweeping this topic under the carpet will do the game no good. In fact, I would be more than happy if Alpha 8 introduced nothing new but AI improvements.
I disagree on two parts of that.
First, AI will never be completely up to the standards of most players because it is simply that: AI. AI will never match the way you think the characters should react, especially if it is trying to reach the standards of a thousand different people.
Secondly, the game is not the game that Tynan imagines and he has many things he wants to do to it. But if he has a choice of adding 100 new features or one AI improvement, I would choose 100 new features every time. The AI is a placeholder, like lots of other things, but the AI is not as noticeable to the general audience as, say, a new trading interface or the ability to make things out of Gold. As much as he would love to spend tons of time on the AI, he also has to worry about increasing and keeping interest in the game and considering the AI is still playable, it is not a priority. You are probably the minority that wants nothing but AI improvements and he has to cater to the majority for now.
at what point does dedicating a thread just for raider AI constitute sweeping it under the rug? I just mean that we have one thread for the AI and one for any other features we can try to get people in the open. thats all.
Why not require that to mine further into/under a mountain you require x wood per tile. Like mineshaft supports. You'd have to spend time outside gathering the wood, and without it you'd get cave ins.
Also any fire in your base could destroy supports leading to everyone being trapped inside/outside trying to tunnel back through :)
I like that Geo, but i worry it would get messy with the resource/hauling/priorities management, that gets a little hectic as you get more colonists and more jobs are added.
Perhaps if two walls surround a tile [WRW], it would get roofed with "[wall material] support column", whilst a complete walling would create a proper roof, which will give a certain amount of supporting as per previous comments
Quote from: Anarak on September 29, 2014, 06:19:48 PM
Quote from: jaeden25 on September 29, 2014, 05:10:49 PM
I think everyone is missing the real problem here. I think the lack of defensive choice in turrets, their weakness to explosives, and their high cost to build are too blame.
Not THE real problem, but one of the problems nonetheless. It's not the real problem because if you had better turrets to make it easier to defend open colonies, it would make it even easier to defend inside ones.
It should be one of these: Or open colonies get as many advantages and drawbacks than mountain ones OR building into a mountain is a technological or economical investment. Currently it's neither.
Quote from: jaeden25 on September 29, 2014, 05:10:49 PM
Sieges are too hard to kill at the moment, when they are far away it's hard to get colonists to attack without them having mental breakdowns on big maps. We need a way to them to sustain their needs away from the colony, we have bedspots which are good, but we need some way of taking food reserve to camp out around the siege.
Like other things it depends on the AI director and challenge intensity, but i agree with the mental breakdowns and supplies.
I already suggested that there should be an "ADRENALINE" mood buff whenever the pawn is within some radius of an enemy and even a small buff when it's drafted.
As per the supplies, I'm together with those who want a (better) slot system, be it general purpose slots or a tool slot or carry slot. Wanna go on the offensive? Pick a few provisions and hit the road. There could be even a new type of cookable/producible food that lasts longer and tastes like nutrient paste and is used in such incursions, perhaps even if someday we get to raid other camps as well.
Overall i think the moral systems need a lot of reworking, i have a few ideas myself but let's wait for 7 and see what Ty has been cooking up.
Giving us more defensive choices is the best way to make open colonies viable, so what if it makes caves easier to defend. Remember we are not trying to force people into the open. We are trying to make open colonies survival issues better. If people still want to live in a cave after then that's fine but it gives options now.
To make open colonies a viable choice for people you need to fix the problems with open colonies, changing how underground bases work will not solve the problems with open colonies I promise you.
Fix the open colonies, if underground bases are still too good, then it's ok to change underground base mechanics, otherwise it's totally useless.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. While giving better defenses is a way to make building outside worthwhile, it's useless if it becomes too easy (thus boring) to build inside. We (at least most of us in the topic) are trying to make building outside more viable, not dwarfing easier while at it.
Or we balance outside and inside (sticks, carrots, features, investments, etc) or we just add goodies to being outside (happy events, specific types of resources that are only in the open, better trade offers, etc).
We really don't want to create another problem while fixing one.
Quote from: Anarak on September 30, 2014, 03:23:30 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree then. While giving better defenses is a way to make building outside worthwhile, it's useless if it becomes too easy (thus boring) to build inside. We (at least most of us in the topic) are trying to make building outside more viable, not dwarfing easier while at it.
Or we balance outside and inside (sticks, carrots, features, investments, etc) or we just add goodies to being outside (happy events, specific types of resources that are only in the open, better trade offers, etc).
We really don't want to create another problem while fixing one.
I don't see how any of those idea's help survival outside sorry. I did say you could introduce things to make underground bases harder but it's pointless if it's still too hard to stay alive outside, I'm not sure why you disagree with this point.
Ah, i understand what you are saying, it's just that i thought toning down the number of enemies is the #1 thing to change n ppls mind, and should be taken into consideration before any further tweakings. By suggesting a slower mining speed, or a mining tool(for example), it already has lower number of enemies in mind. I think It's been mentioned a couple times in this thread alone, together with a more diverse behavior/goal for enemies.
Quote from: Anarak on September 30, 2014, 04:02:40 PM
Ah, i understand what you are saying, it's just that i thought toning down the number of enemies is the #1 thing to change n ppls mind, and should be taken into consideration before any further tweakings. By suggesting a slower mining speed, or a mining tool(for example), it already has lower number of enemies in mind. I think It's been mentioned a couple times in this thread alone, together with a more diverse behavior/goal for enemies.
Yes it could be a way to go I agree on that, but, it is fun to battle those big hordes so I would rather it be a last resort after other options are explored. Who doesn't want a big epic battle? ^^
It would be a big epic battle if we also had 100 colonists. 10 against 200 is not epic in my mind.
10 vs 200 is not epic, it's wait for it... legendary 8)
I really like last stands, really do, but a last stand is the climax of the story, not a regular monthly "issue".
The thing is that it's an ever-growing situation. If you get attacked by 200 raiders, you know next month you'll be attacked by 210, or 250. hence why we need more diverse types of attacks and enemies, while still keeping the last stand or the "horde" type
Quote from: stefanstr on September 30, 2014, 04:25:13 PM
It would be a big epic battle if we also had 100 colonists. 10 against 200 is not epic in my mind.
Yes, some cool defense options would help this.
I have to agree that introducing improving defensive buildings wouldn't do much good - even if it did drive people outside, they would just build their own mountain outside. If anything, I feel the defenses should be made weaker - entrentching oneself should bring an advantage, but not multiply your power by an order of magnitude like it does now. Of course, that will never happen as long as we can simply spam turrets and clump raiders together.
To be honest, I would like to see turrets removed or at least changed so that they need a colonist manning them. They are hard to balance, to the point raids are very hard to win without them but a non-issue when you build a proper killbox, and they take away from the atmosphere Rimworld has without them. A few old rusty turrets would be fine, but there's no good way to limit the number of them one can build and the logical thing to do is to spam them whenever possible. Turrets feel like an artifact of old versions, and I think the game would be better if turrets were cut completely and raids were rebalanced to reflect that. The reduction of killboxing effectiveness would make outside colonies more of an option to players.
Maybe a manned turret control console. Like the comms console. each one needs to be manned for turrets to work, and can only support say (reaches into thin air) 6 turrets. or maybe the limit is based on the shooting skill of the user.
this combined with raiders who, once discover a killbox, avoid it and try another way.
Cutting turrets out completely... A very intriguing idea. Any modders willing to test it out in practice?
I like turrets :(
But i also think there should be a limit. A control console is a nice one, perhaps it requires the research skill, putting those techs guys to good use (might need a new renaming tho). Alternatively, as my skill synergy suggestion, might require research and shooting skills.
6 turrets per console seems like a fair guess.
Actually, even non-manned turret control relays would help a little. Perhaps they simply support a certain number of turrets or they support a certain number of turrets in a given radius.
---
I kinda want killboxes to remain but i kinda hate them aswell, as they are the be all end all defense system
Hell that's a lot of text, so sorry if I'm not the first having this idea, but I just read a post from marvinkosh on the first page and it gave me the idea that raiders could have a strategy. Instead of making the waves bigger and bigger, let them build bases with comm consoles and trade beacons at some point when they realise they can't just rush your colonie. They would now call periodical support drops with food and materials. You could attack them and target their consoles or beacons, maybe they have voulnerable power supply, maybe you can constantly grenade the power conduites. In the late game, they may build walls around their base so you can't just snipe the beacon and even if, as long as the comm console is availible, the drops would come randomly on the map and you could fight to get them.
These are some pretty non-sortet toughts that just came up my mind, but my generall idea is to make the raiders a threat you would have to fight for weeks or even months. A real stakeout with tactics and counter-tactics. Of course this would require a much smarter AI which would be able to analyse your tactics and plan ahead, but I think the gain from it would be worth to be set on an Alpha 8 or 9 todo list.
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
Graboids??
heh heh
(http://whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/trem.jpg)
Perhaps we could model the colonist's vitamin D levels and increase disease chance accordingly :P.
:P
---
+3 for graboids :D
Quote from: Anarak on September 30, 2014, 05:39:24 PM
I like turrets :(
But i also think there should be a limit. A control console is a nice one, perhaps it requires the research skill, putting those techs guys to good use (might need a new renaming tho).
Good call on the research skill. its kind of useless after everything is researched. maybe it determines how many you can control, and shooting skill translates to the turrets skill.
Quote from: stefanstr on September 30, 2014, 05:32:31 PM
Cutting turrets out completely... A very intriguing idea. Any modders willing to test it out in practice?
I'll have a go at it.
I like the idea of dropping automated turrets.
Having a gun emplacement that a colonist has to physically man returns the feeling to a wild west colony situation. I'm thinking Mad Max here actually. Fits nicely with the psychotic raiders.
Not gonna get into AI again since that is a really big thing that deserves its own thread. We know it needs looking at. Let's not clog up too much space with ideas here.
-removing turret automation will return us to a colony feel as opposed to a tower defense fortress feel.
- These are colonists, not combat veterans (even if some of them are), and these are raiders, not psychotic suicidal zerg.
Returning to a simply play style. Reduce the players defensive capabilities and reduce the raider 'threat'. Raids should be raids against a partially defended colony. As soon as players build a fortress then raids should never even happen.
I think somebody modding out turrets entirely and reducing raid density would be an interesting experiment.
I think the major trick to bringing colonies back out into the open is to make it so the mountain is not the only option. People should feel free to build a mountain fortress or a natural town. Both should be viable. The fortress will likely be safe and boring.
I feel that in trying to increase the stick size to smack the dwarfs out of their fortresses we have chased the townspeople into the hills.
automated turrets should stay, if you have no fighters at all then you still need some kind of defense. they are in a weird place right now, overpowered if you spam them, underpowered on their own and blow up quick. thats why they need a limiter of some kind without nerfing them in the early game. also you dont really need a mod to remove them, just dont build them.
that being said, without turrets, what kind of defenses can we build? spiked pitfall traps? tripwires? snare traps? those are just the primitive ones, what about a minefield or maybe camouflage for your snipers so they can shoot but the effective range of the enemy is reduced. if your guys are behind sandbags then the weapon is considered mounted and gets a bonus to accuracy.
raiders aside, another reason to leave the cave would be fishing!
The idea of removing turrets is pretty ridiculous. If you want to remove kill-boxes from the game then how will that possibly have an effect. All you guys will do is stack your colonists at the choke point instead. No matter what you do to defense, improve or remove people who just want to play kill-boxes will play them no matter what. Stop trying to find a fix for it, there is not one, that's just how RTS games have always worked.
The ONLY way you can stop a killbox strategy is to stop wall building, if wall building is an option then choke points will always be made. It's not defense that is overpowered, it's the building of a choke point that is overpowered.
We need the option to be able to defend an outdoor colony, currently it's to expensive to maintain good defense over a long period of time, the turrets are incredibly weak against mechanoids and explosives, to the point where they only work as a dummy target while my colonists do the work.
Colonists in combat should be the last resort given how few and far between they come. However at the moment they have to put themselves at great risk almost straight away to defend their colony. Colonist controlled defense (not manned) sounds like a good option to lower the risk to the colonists. Also things like guard towers that can be manned to increase the range of colonist weapons, and boost defensive stats so I am not forced to equip everyone with M24's to out-range the enemy.
Tynan has stated he doesnt want pseudo z-levels like towers, battlements, and i assume trenches and tunnels.
killboxes can be mitigated simply by allowing the raiders to learn to avoid them. first attack might see them all die in one, but the next might say that digging through the wall is a better idea. so you then surround your base with killboxes. then the raiders just drop pod in. then your base is made entirely of killboxes. we cant get rid of them so lets not try. besides, one good mech raid and they tear through them like paper. the whole system will evolve as updates are released and AI improved. but rather than kill off playstyles, we need to allow for all kinds. turret spammers, dwarfers, whatever.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on October 01, 2014, 09:36:27 AM
Tynan has stated he doesnt want pseudo z-levels like towers, battlements, and i assume trenches and tunnels.
killboxes can be mitigated simply by allowing the raiders to learn to avoid them. first attack might see them all die in one, but the next might say that digging through the wall is a better idea. so you then surround your base with killboxes. then the raiders just drop pod in. then your base is made entirely of killboxes. we cant get rid of them so lets not try. besides, one good mech raid and they tear through them like paper. the whole system will evolve as updates are released and AI improved. but rather than kill off playstyles, we need to allow for all kinds. turret spammers, dwarfers, whatever.
I agree I don't think it's right to kill playstyles, the more option's the better. I was just pointing out that the other changes suggested will only make the problem worse with open colonies. You also have to remember how hard is it going to be to improve the AI enough to protect itself from abuse.
I can't currently play my playstyle very long though because of how expensive and useless turrets are in the open. One group of mechanoids wipes out my defense, normally 6-8 turrets, sandbags and walls for colonist cover. Against 15 mech or a big group of raiders they kill all the turrets and cover pretty quickly with explosives and I have to micromanage a lot with M24's which is fine, but it costs close to 1400 metal each defense. It's way too much considering I try and make the minimum defense I need.
Also I don't understand why he would hate the idea of a tower that increases range and/or defensive stats. Currently we have all these cool weapons in the game, but there is no way to actually use any of them, or get colonists engaged in a fight. We need more than 1 type of defense in this game, or it's really a waste of time having a combat system at all.
Having more defense options would make some playstyles really easy but it's not a problem, after all if you complain it's too easy you can always make the game harder for yourself by just not spamming turrets or w/e, you aren't forced to spam turrets just because you can. If it was a competitive game it would be a problem, but it's not.
he just stated that if he was going to do anything 3D he would do it all the way and not just some shoehorned code. either way i dont think its on the TODO list for the time being.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on October 01, 2014, 10:24:47 AM
he just stated that if he was going to do anything 3D he would do it all the way and not just some shoehorned code. either way i dont think its on the TODO list for the time being.
The tower's don't have to be 3d though, 'towers' was just a word I used to get my point across. It could be something like just sandbags that have a special interaction like you could 'man' them and take cover behind etc to receive those bonuses. Or that could go for any wall you have constructed also and scrap the need to man them, to help when enemy drop into parts of your base that lack proper defense. This idea could help against taking out sieges with snipers by buildings some cover near them and using the increased range.
ah ok, i think i mentioned something about sandbags giving a bonus somewhere. I think a better word to use in this case would be a pillbox. concrete bunker with a heavy weapon and armored door. would be rather neat!
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on October 01, 2014, 10:54:52 AM
ah ok, i think i mentioned something about sandbags giving a bonus somewhere. I think a better word to use in this case would be a pillbox. concrete bunker with a heavy weapon and armored door. would be rather neat!
Yes, that's what I wanted to say hah, it would fit very well into this game.
Removing automatic turrets is not a solution for killboxing abuse, but for the problem that it is possible to get practically infinite firepower with as long as you have enough metal. A single killbox can take dozens of turrets, and if that still isn't enough for some reason, you can just build another killbox behind it and chain them as much as you like. Without turrets, you would always only have as much firepower as many colonists you have. It would not remove the strategy of turtling yourself up in a hole, but it would stop it being vastly superior to all other strategies.
Nobody is objecting to defense being a viable strategy, people just don't like it being the only viable strategy - which it currently is once you are far enough into the game, because fighting off hundreds of raiders with just your colonists is rather futile.
And that's not mentioning other problems with turrets: they take many colonists' roles in combat. I'm pretty sure many people who like turrets would object if we could build an unlimited number of robots that could cook, construct or research, yet it is essentially the same thing. Perhaps turret removal should get it's own thread?
As to other problems, the combat side of the game is not too strong. It can be fun in a city with plenty of passageways and buildings to block the line of sight, but there aren't many tactical options if you fight in the open, and especially not in a typical mountain base. I suppose that's a part of why people want to automate the defense and just want the raiders to die under a hail of turret fire without having to do much. Perhaps if the tactical part of the game was expanded and improved, people would try it out more instead of hiding behind turrets?
in reality, if you got the material (including money) then building lots of guns is a valid method of keeping safe. thats the whole point of the military. (lets keep politics out of this) so we should keep them. maybe turrets shouldnt be available from the start? research to unlock them, then improve them. zerg rush raiders are only in the game because thats all the AI can handle for now. each new version will have fewer raiders who act better or are individually more powerful.
Quote from: Rahjital on October 01, 2014, 11:21:50 AM
Removing automatic turrets is not a solution for killboxing abuse, but for the problem that it is possible to get practically infinite firepower with as long as you have enough metal. A single killbox can take dozens of turrets, and if that still isn't enough for some reason, you can just build another killbox behind it and chain them as much as you like. Without turrets, you would always only have as much firepower as many colonists you have. It would not remove the strategy of turtling yourself up in a hole, but it would stop it being vastly superior to all other strategies.
Nobody is objecting to defense being a viable strategy, people just don't like it being the only viable strategy - which it currently is once you are far enough into the game, because fighting off hundreds of raiders with just your colonists is rather futile.
And that's not mentioning other problems with turrets: they take many colonists' roles in combat. I'm pretty sure many people who like turrets would object if we could build an unlimited number of robots that could cook, construct or research, yet it is essentially the same thing. Perhaps turret removal should get it's own thread?
As to other problems, the combat side of the game is not too strong. It can be fun in a city with plenty of passageways and buildings to block the line of sight, but there aren't many tactical options if you fight in the open, and especially not in a typical mountain base. I suppose that's a part of why people want to automate the defense and just want the raiders to die under a hail of turret fire without having to do much. Perhaps if the tactical part of the game was expanded and improved, people would try it out more instead of hiding behind turrets?
I don't think making kill-box abuse super powerful is really an issue, after all those people that would find it an issue simply wouldn't play like that. I certainly don't feel forced or interested to play the kill-box game even on extreme difficulty. I do however find bad game play issues refusing to play like that. For example not being able to attack a siege because of how quickly mental breakdowns occur when running across huge maps, or not being able to kill anything because of the very high risk of dying due to the many snipers that reside in the sieges. Also the lack of resources to rebuild my defense after a big attack.
What the problem with tactical options boil's down to is the contradiction between how you should play the game and how you need to play the game. What I mean by this is your colonists and resources are precious and need to be kept alive at all costs, but if you want to defend your base against huge attacks with colonists and turrets, you have to play them like they are expendable and you just can't do it.
This leads to things like only being able to fight with m24's, because if you use any other weapon your in range and just die and only having the option of waiting for sieges to starve to death, you can't even kill them with mortars because the accuracy is so bad.
By introducing some cheaper different defense options you help erase these problems, pillboxes are a cool solution, made from stone blocks they would be easier to replace than turrets and also being manned by colonists it automatically limits how much you can spam them. There is no point having 100 if you only have 10 colonists, but you can place them throughout strategic point in your base to deal with those enemies that drop into your base, and it won't be a huge investment for something that gets used very little.
At the end of the day the only 'downside' which in my eyes isn't even a downside is it may make kill-boxes stronger. Again though how can it really be a big deal. If you don't want things to be easy you can make the game harder for yourself, and do you really care if the game is easier for someone else who wants to play like that, there is just no reason to care.
I think things should be geared towards balance while playing without killboxes. Yet not stopping people from using them. so the people who dont like them can play without them, and those who do can do it. if you are making killboxes then you want an easy defence, so making it easier for the sake of those who dont use them wont really change much. (if you can follow that logic, kinda confusing) basically it means, you shouldnt NEED killboxes, but they are there if you want.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on October 01, 2014, 11:58:10 AM
I think things should be geared towards balance while playing without killboxes. Yet not stopping people from using them. so the people who dont like them can play without them, and those who do can do it. if you are making killboxes then you want an easy defence, so making it easier for the sake of those who dont use them wont really change much. (if you can follow that logic, kinda confusing) basically it means, you shouldnt NEED killboxes, but they are there if you want.
This. I wouldn't even have searched the forum for good killbox ideas if I wasn't getting destroyed by zerg rushes and mechanoids.
now that alpha 7 is out I can say that it helps a lot with the amount of raiders in the end game as long as your wealth isn't extremely high and therefore leaves less need for kill boxes. This is my personal experience and may not be the case with everybody.
No one is arguing for the removal of kill-boxes it has been pretty well established in this thread that it has to be about incentives to play in the open instead of spanking the tunneling dwarves with diseases, blights and quakes.
I myself am an open terrain player and very much like to layout a town with a lot of overlapping fire zones and ambush opportunities. Thus I'm not so much bothered by raiders dropping in
1. In my last few games I have entirely forsworn the use of mining and turrets. Metal is obtained by my folks by gathering drops or melting scraps. And it is very well playable:
Lesser turrets means lesser wealth means lesser attackers. Turrets multiply the problem. Bothered by 250+ doom-stacks? Stop spaming turrets. A moderately wealthy colony of 10 might attract up to 50 raiders after a year. A very manageable crowd on a large map with good prepared defenses outside of the home-zone and an elastic defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth). So (Map) size does matter after all.
On the upside of not having to mine is that my colonists have a lot of spare time they can use to clean their mess, wash the stains, cremate the corpses and tend the gardens. Most of the time they are very content and mental breakdowns are rare and far between. Thus they survive even long distance treks to the opposite corner of the 400x400 map. Small outhouses of a couple beds and berries do the rest.
Living outside is about being prepared the same way as living indoors. But instead of constructing industrial murder processing facilities one lives of the land. Both are very well viable and I think that has to be communicated more often, hence this wall of text.
Disabling turrets would diminish the play-stile of the kill-boxers, even though I think that a remotely managed, tech guy operated turret variant would fit the theme of the game very well. Why not have a research option of utilizing the AI Core as a base defense mainframe, complete with total control of all turrets and doors(sneaky little bugger), a chance to snap and screw the player over ("Sure, you can have a bazillion turrets in the endless Maze of Mayhem... Muahahaha!") and a dislike for being shutdown for power preservation considerations. Players could build as much turrets as their egg heads could maintain or risk having entire swaths of their own base being impassable. Lots of kinks in this but a chance for game-play.
And with game play I see the largest problem for outdoor colonies: It doesn't matter whether you mine the mountain or tame the wilds - the game has no middle game to speak of and thus it'll be a man-made mountain in the open in the end, including at least 60 rows of wall to the edges of the build-able map.
Due to the escalating nature of resource hogging simulation games like this one, you need some projects to sink the man-hours of your imps into lest you start building wall after wall. Dwarves suffer the same problem but at least they have a mighty mountain to mine to build Moria and can man-handle passers-by pretty unscathed.
A good trade and diplomacy system to gain wealth by and waste your riches on is mandatory from my point of view. A waaaaaayyyy more (MOAR
TM) complex progression of materials, crafting and research opportunities is needed as well.
2 Perhaps a world map meta game of sorts to struggle for villages, tribes and tributes.
3I'm pretty positive that a lot of those concerns are being acknowledged and worked on by Ty and ison (STUFFS! and stones! Yeehaw!). The binding of population size and raider strength goes into the right direction of easing the prevalence of doom-stacks for hoarders.
But as of now I think people are building mountain bases because there is not much else to be done.
TL;DR: Towns are fun and require a very different early and mid game approach than fortresses but it's very worth it.
1 Once a derelict dropped in my food storage. Not so much being not bothered at this point.2 A big THANK YOU VERY MUCH to all the talented modders of this great game!3 EDIT: A more difficult survival experience would go a long way, starting with no weapons but to be able to manufacture them. Sticks and Stones. More needs like hygiene and water, recreation and socializing. I'm so hopeful for the future!
agreed. im going to try a long term open town, im thinking jungle. i will mine only to clear area and gather resources, but nothing under a mountain. see how things play out.
Try to take a coastal site. You'll be protected at least from one site and a fair chunk of attacks have to travel a very long distance to you. Try to make good use of ruins by punching holes where appropriate to shoot through and build some single walls for cover where no ruins are.
Edit: And dont forget to kill the homezones or someone might try to sweep the grass. :)
does alternating solid wall with sandbag help? #-#-#-# and have the colonists behind the solid wall?
Skip the sandbags. Waste of scarce metal. If you want to improve the position put the sandbag in front of the wall so that the badboys can't use your defense structures as long range sniping encampment once you've retreated to the next line of defense.
I usually do:
S__S__S__S
W__W__W__W
i get you, good to know!
Quote from: Angie on September 30, 2014, 06:47:39 PM
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
Graboids??
heh heh
(http://whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/trem.jpg)
You madam are a genius, and hilarious xD.
QuoteNo, it really doesn't. If they had magic drills that can go through rock like that, they'd be much better off drilling into the mountain themselves to get a metric assload of metal to sell off for money for which they had to fire off precisely zero shots.
Their Pirates, they raid/punder/kill and all for the riches they will receive from winning. A drill that can bust through a wall into an otherwise secure base would be a very valuable weapon they could use. Also consider the game-play value over realism, more tactics and raid types would be fun, especially creative and bizarre innovation.
QuoteInsane micro is not very fun at all for most people, no. That's part of the problem - another is that a real-time strategy game does not lend itself well to X-COM style battles against forces which are vastly superior in number. (Not to mention vastly superior in skill, which is what happens when you're forced to draft every tom, dick and harry in the settlement.)
QuoteRaiders raid because they have relatively few resources and they want to claim those which others have. Raider, for those reasons, do not like to attack well-fortified positions. The Raiders in RimWorld, as it stands, aren't "Raiders" in any sense of the word, they're Borderlands Psychos who only want to kill people.
Which, you know... Is legitimate, but they're not raiders. Raiders shouldn't even look at a well-armed, well-defended settlement which is so paranoid that every tom, dick and harry goes about their daily lives with a military pulse rifle strapped around their chest, in an underground bunker, an aboveground castle, or an aboveground castle with killboxes leading to an underground bunker with more killboxes. That's not a raiding target, that's a suicide meatgrinder - which is exactly what happens. My personal strategy has always been (bear in mind it's old, I stopped playing when it became clear that Tynan was just pulling out stick after stick to nerf all the effective defensive strategies so that players inevitably die to doomraids,) to use craptons of mines on concrete roads (that they inevitably path down because it's easier) lined with graves. When the majority of the arseholes are in the suicide path, I blow the mines, which (1) killed the baddies, and (2) emptied the graves, which the now-dead baddies were shoveled into. Collect the guns, rearm the mines, rinse, lather, repeat. You'd have to be an utter moron to fall for that trap, but you'd have to be equally moronic to think that under any circumstances attacking people who are so paranoidally xenophobic as to create such a trap was any kind of a good idea.
Maybe some of Tynan's earlier methods weren't the best calls, but even he has stated he's interested in reducing the number of enemies per raid and making outdoor survival more viable of an option. Atm players are building 'fault proof bunkers', how do you deal with that? Previously it was only to increase the number of enemies per raid until you get to these ridiculously high numbers of pirates that they just overwhelm defenses.
If you have different tactics for different raid types, then that will cover more defences and force players to adapt their strategies. Which in turn means you don't need that stack of 200+ raiders anymore to break 1 killbox.
QuoteZergrush should be restricted to animals, zealots and armies, but it shouldn't go away completely. On the other hand, it should be really, really easy to defeat zergrushes with prepared defensive positions.
Yup it is, it involves walling yourself in and preparing a kill box to hose down enemies as they come through a choke point. Usually built into the side of a mountain so players don't have to deal with drop raids either.
QuoteAgreed, but the AI should not be able to bust down walls/powered doors by punching, unless the AI in question is (a) a muffalo, or (b) a battering ram/siege engine.
Or a great big drill? :-D
QuoteAfter a certain point of defensive preparations, raiders should just say "not worth it" and move on. If they have to blast down more than one wall and climb over a field of jagged rocks, crashed spaceship junk and sandbags to get to those walls, they should just pack it in and call it a day.
Consider game-play value. What would be the point of the attacks at all if the pirates did that? That's why we are saying reduce the numbers, make them use an even greater variety of tactics, give them a smarter A.I. So make raids fun instead of overwhelming.
Did team rocket give up trying to capture pikachu after the first attempt? No, which is why we find their presence in the pokemon series so amusing, even irritating (Prepare for trouble, and make it double...).
QuoteIf you can build hydroponic farms, you can build hydroponic grass farms to feed your animals. But it ought to be more of a PitA than just paddocking them outside, of course, and raiding for these tamed animals should be something a lot of folks might be interested in doing.
Of course, you'd have to make them very useful, what with the extra exposure - raids for your animals which simply would not happen if you didn't have any, a paddock full of your valuable animals and the Rimworld's legendarily inflammable grass is a great recipe to watch a lot of your valuable tame animals go up in literal smoke, etc. Basically, they'd have to crap out money, fart rainbows (of happiness,) and piss heroin before it'd be remotely worth it for a RimWorld player to go to the trouble and expense.
We cultivate crops, we tame wild beasts. 1 sole purpose, to make food.
Muffalo would be prime for this because they seem like the milk providing types.
You could additionally breed animals, for food. Some animals might not be tame-able in this sense, though it would be quite amusing to see people have megascarab paddocks.
hydroponic grass.... hydroponics doesn't quite work that way. It's 1 thing to grow crops/grass in a water basin and another thing to stick a 1 ton muffalo on it so it can eat the grass. You wouldn't be growing grass in the paddock you would be feeding the animals harvested crops. which in turn gives you other types of food. Besides it's more something to entice players to build outside, giving them an inside alternative is kinda counter productive. Besides most large animals will outright refuse to enter caves, some turn violent when forced.
They would be exposed, to me that's kinda the idea, it's a trade off but the game should leave you exposed to have tense moments where you have to run around madly. Players have now started building huge fortified bunkers, so we need ways to draw them out of them and build in the open while reducing the attacks and providing more manageable challenges. If you experience an enemy raid, it should be the case you can deal with it.
QuoteThis would be nice, I'll admit, but I'd rather build dune buggies and PMVs in underground machine shops than deal with the hassle that comes with paddocking animals (see above,) except maybe in the very early game, if a horse wandered by. Also, you can totally ride a horse underground if the ceilings are high enough, and it ought to be able to make them high enough.
Again this is mainly an idea to promote players building outdoors. Horses are a good means of transportation, they carried man for thousands of years before the steam engine/internal combustion engine was conceived. I can assure you, man didn't take horses into caves then either.
QuoteRimWorld really, really has too many sticks already, including the huge sticks which drive players who are not looking for a micromanagey real-time-pause combat sim, into underground bunkers. Outside castles used to be good enough, then the mortars came out. Do you just want RimWorld to be a painful exercise in kicking the player in the teeth because no matter what they do, the RNG is going to screw them?
Yup! Well in truth a lot of the events that happen now happen to those who build outside. Lighting strikes, flash fires are the first that come to mind. This about time the underground dwellers get their just dues as well :P. Nothing serious, and you can always reduce the rate of which these events happen to make room for more.
QuoteProper ventilation can sort that out, making sure that gas pockets don't happen anywhere that's ventilated. It could be a risk, but one that could be mitigated by proper construction.
Less mitigate, more deal with. A filtration system of that complexity that could mitigate a dangerous gas leak isn't something they would have access too. But definitely some sort of system to deal with gas leaks would be implemented. If a colonist remains in an area where there is gas for too long they would suffocate, those with poor breathing even more so.
Ofcourse this isn't a timed event, you run into them when mining. Gas chambers that need to be ventilated before their safe to re-enter.
QuoteYes, because what RimWorld really needs is more ways for the RNG to say "Have you got the time? To get stuffed!"
(That was sarcasm.)
Honestly, this would just be a massive pain in the ass.
Freak lightning storms every third day are annoying, but those only affect outside dwellers. Tone down how often the event happens. Maybe earthquakes are a once a year event?
Plumbing isn't a thing, I guess? Nor are underground springs, or condensing the water that's coming out of our many and copious steam generators?
How about not, because caves which have been prepared for living aren't any dirtier than your average dwelling. Sure, going out into the uncut stone areas might get you grimy, but that's what sending all of your labourers to smooth it all out is for. Or just putting down metal walls and flooring, which ought to include metal roofs to boot.
How about no, because you know what frontier life tends to involve? A lot of getting dirty. Sure, maybe some delicate glitterworlder might be this way, but someone who's been trained as a miner or is from a medieval world is unlikely to be overly bothered by getting a little dirty.
Water, yup your right pretty much could exist. Underwater springs are considerable variables, just need to find them ofcourse. Although I wasn't too keen on the idea of water, it would probably be an unpopular idea for most.
Hygene was a random thought so I thought I'd put it down. But glitter worlders, urb worlders, medieval nobles and other developed society/high ranking members might consider this irritating. But it's implication in the game would probably be very unpopular in itself. Yeah labourers can do that, but caves are by no means the same thing as houses. Houses have better filtration by far, even with modern filtration systems.
Agreed though that we can really do without these.
QuoteTHIS! This is what I'm talking about. Pure carrot, a reason to want your mooks to go outside, possibly up to and including drafting them all and sending them scurrying out into the moonlight if it lasts a reasonable amount of time.
Need more events that are positive :D, Aurora are something people around the global come to see.
The Horta would totally kill a Graboid
thought: endgame for dwarfers is to become a horta
btw, graboids, as awesome as they are, travel in sand only, so they'd be another thing to worry about in the open. Not that i'm complaining, sandworms are one of the first suggestions i thought about.
Why I build a bunker INSIDE mountains:
- Raiders attacks walls, for "I don't know why". Minor irritation right? Till you overlook one repairman who went [yaomingface] to repair the wall while the enemy is still there.
- Artillery and Raiders bypasses walls and constructed roofs. I'll understand your point of an orbital drop army flanking me. But knowing how to make stone walls but not blast-proof is kind of a waste of materials.
Based on the above 2 (action), here's the reaction:
Store all your (valuable) assets in a safe place. (Read: A bunker in the mountain)
How to stop me from building inside mountains:
- Stop making raiders attack random wall, or make a "camo wall" that would only be attacked by raiders if that is the only thing left that I had build.
- A reasonable method to defend against artillery. Stone roofing?
BS, that only sounded that it's an outdoor
mountain bunker.
Walls of Jericho, Medieval Castles, Star Forts, Firebase. Defensive construction is nothing new. If anything, it's a sound plan. Building houses outside while your enemies rains fire or drops from the sky on the other hand is an invitation for a massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
Quote from: Anarak on October 01, 2014, 03:08:41 PM
thought: endgame for dwarfers is to become a horta
btw, graboids, as awesome as they are, travel in sand only, so they'd be another thing to worry about in the open. Not that i'm complaining, sandworms are one of the first suggestions i thought about.
Well, in my little worlds the mountains tend to start at ground level... so you know there be some strong-assed sand under them hills. The thought of digging out a beautiful cave and lining the walls with gold, then have a handful of pretty wooden floor boards ready to place ever so delicately yet firmly down... and then WHAMMO!!! some snake-tongue-claw-slime-covered thingamajigs burst from the ground and swalla' ya' up!
First, let me just say that I agree with just about everyone (including Tynan) in saying that raiders should change to something other than a massive zerg. This would undo some of the problem, but, without completely nerfing all threats, mountain fortresses will still be the optimal playstyle.
Perhaps one way to solve the issue of dwarf-ing is to make colonies simply take up more open (roofed or otherwise) space than most mountains can provide. You could so this in a few ways: make "spacious" rooms actually require a room that would be spacious in real life, for instance. Perhaps make something like "noisy room" if colonists are near something that would be very loud (even through walls) like generators, smelters, hydroponic facilities, and the like, and mitigate it across open space like those between buildings.
Currently, the game gives you way too much incentive to live within as small a space as possible. Travel time is less, organizing for defense is much easier, your pawns have more conversations, it's much easier to concentrate beauty-enhancing objects, and obviously build costs scale with the size of the building. Giving more substantial bonuses for letting your colonists live in something that actually resembles, you know, a colony (instead of the interior of a submarine) could include some carrots, such as: give outdoor spaces a higher base beauty factor, give a "nice day" bonus in favorable biomes during clear weather (and perhaps a corresponding malus for not being outside on a nice day), and maybe even give random and semi-occasional buffs like "singing in the rain" that give colonists a bonus for interacting with nature.
Last ideas: alongside cabin fever, you could have something like a "different day, same s***" malus when colonists live and work in the same small spaces day after day after day (might be hard to implement). You could also have a rare chance for colonists moving outside to come across buried objects like caches or crashed escape pods.
Some really nice ideas Aethelric. Especially the nice little incentives for moving around outside. These can be gained by town builders and mountain dwarfs.
I think we all agree that we want to make moving outside viable again. I like being able to choose based on my start location. If there is ever the thought process of, "If I don't have a large mountain to build into then I'm dead", there in lies the problem.
Variety is always great. The only things that should be requirements are food and sleeping spots. Everything else is an optional choice that can be aesthetic or make your colony run better.
When I get back from work today I'm starting a outdoor colony again with the express goal of seeing what works and what doesn't work and what would make my experience better. I think we all have some good ideas and I want to see how things are feeling in Alpha 7.
just played my first out-in-the-open turret/mortar-free base now that A7 is out and did pretty well. The final siege following the crashed ship did me in, but thats probably because i was hording metal and plasteel to build my ship.
you could add resources that only can be made on the surface, like maybe moon crystals (or whatever) that could be grown only in moonlight, or weird and rare plants that only grow naturally on the surface and only bloom for a short while, or maybe there could be ground resources like some kind of special sand or tar that would only appear on the surface of maps, so it would be advantageous to choose a landing site with very few mountains, because at the moment mountains are just more valuable than the surface
These kind of resources have been brought up in this thread a couple of times, and yeah I agree they'd help to even things a little. If not, at least they would bring more diversity to the game, which is mostly nice.
I actually think the game would profit more from a more randomized approach and better/diverse game goals, if not for a core experience, at least a solid alternative one.
Random pawns, maps/biomes, equipment, fauna and flora, weather, enemies, events, etc. Basically each "drop" would have it's own theme, it's own challenges, not unlike a mission or a scenario in other RTS games.
So, one drop you might get heavy thunderstorms or heatwaves, thus you'd move into the ground. Another drop you'd have regular earthquakes, so building into mountains would require more investment (metal supports, anti-tremor walls or earthquake sensors), or perhaps you have one of those special resources laying around, making building outside more worthwhile than inside. Basically every game you'd have to adapt to your newly found situation, actually giving some rapport with your own pawns, because they too have no idea what to expect from their environment.
I've already suggested this a couple of times, but as a thread grow in size people stop reading the middle comments, so here it is again
The biggest problem is that the end-game enemy waves are just too punishing, to the point where you *have* to funnel all of them into a killbox to even stand a chance in hell of surviving (be that through building a giant fortress with only one entrance, or by digging deep into the mountainside).
I think this could be fixed by first severely lowering the strength of the enemy attacks, and then making the ones that do attack do things like refuse to march single-file into the killbox. Spread the attackers out, make them attack from several different angles, and add units like sappers that blast through your walls and cause cave-ins if you've buried deep or left only one (or very few) entrance(s). If you've dug too greedily and too deep, make them spawn inside the mountain with you, and start blasting their way in your direction. Stuff like that. Anything to punish ultra-defensive strategies that rely on walls and single death-rooms to keep safe.
We should have to use our colonists as mobile defense to protect our colony too. Doing this was overly punishing (if you ask me) pre-7, but now that we can fix up their legs and organs, this would give us lots of really cool battles where our guys and gals fall in battle, only to get patched-up and maybe turned into battle-hardened cyborgs over time. Or maybe they'd steal the organs of their attackers, who knows! That's way cooler than locking them up behind walls of turrets all the time.
Just giving players incentives to move outside isn't enough, we gotta be punished for staying inside and using only fixed defences.
All this in my opinion, of course.
From what I've played so far it seems that the reason we build fortress castles is because most dangers, as they progress, eventually become armies and there is no answer for this beyond physical force.
As long as mobs of enemies and physical force are the only two variables in hostile events we will ALWAYS have heavily condensed fortress style colonies. What we need in the game is more styles of "red" events, more ways to deal with hostile events, and far fewer zerg rush events happening in general.
Just my two cents.
After reconsidering some older posts in this thread I still think that no one should be forced out of mountain building by some kind of RNG Balrog. The best way would be - solely a PoV among many - to incur the costs of living in a mountain on mountain colonies as open colonies already suffer from quite a range of afflictions.
To summarize and expand on some great ideas in this thread:
- Mining should require the use of resources, preferably wood (or any kind of resource the player is willing to use1). Drilling a mountain is an expensive task and you should spend some money to earn money. Basically it would be a resource conversion game-play that converts renewable resources like trees and woods into deplete-able resources like room2 and all kinds of metal. Right now, the only cost of mining a mountain is the work required to mine. But even with only a marginal number of skilled miners, that's pretty much neglect-able, thence the support for longer mining times.3
- Personally, I am no fan of enchanted unicorn milk that lets your colonists age backwards when consumed (or any other kind of special resource that's considered valuable to hamstring players' stiles). But we could keep it realistic when we consider the "resources" living in the open provides to you for free. Air quality. As pointed out before living in a poorly vented mountain is indeed fatally dangerous. A second infrastructure akin to energy that recycles and refreshes the air would raise the cost of living but allow the player to overcome a predefined obstacle by game-play and not being blighted by RNG madness (aka "Events").
- In the same vein: Sure you can live underground and grow our crops with hydroponics. But hydroponics requires an insane amount of energy and water(!). A third infrastructural layer of water and sewage pipes4 could be utilized by in- and outside colonies, with mountain fortresses requiring large cisterns and water-pumping stations, that their outside brethren could do without.5Heck, twice a day their potatoes are watered for free!
Each player could decide for themselves whether a more expensive colony development is justified by being shielded from most harms. It would be transparent and problems could be anticipated and mitigated in time and not just on demand when Randy thinks it's time for a quake to (literally) shake things up a bit.
TL;DR: Raise the cost of living in a mountain by requiring the players to invest in some kind of infrastructure, that open colonies can do without.
1Would metal struts be somewhat stronger than wooden ones and their use be a good investment considering the amount of metal that's exploited by the mine shaft?2 Room is a deplete-able resource because map sizes are finite. Shielded room under a mountain is a part of the entire map space and thus an even scarcer variant.3 Longer mining times could mitigate the advantage that mountain strongholds have over open terrain settlements. Development would be seriously hindered if the time to mine room could equally be used to build an entire colony. Fortresses could start out as open settlements hugging a big rock and over the course of years slowly move indoors. Improved gameplay. Fortresses are viable but only as a reward for serious development/investment. Another point in favor of longer ming times: Willing suspension of disbelief. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief) Is it credible that raiders zerg the killbox, if they could just slice through the mountain in double the time it takes to traverse the map?4 To remove clutter and offer a goal for development, a future techtree could offer integrated utility walls, thus enabling the player to reinvest in your current base and infrastructure. A redecoration would offer room for better accommodations perhaps. 3 Sure, there are sub-subterranean water sources (springs, rivers, even lakes) but they'd need to be integrated into an infrastructure like geysers are right now.
Quote from: Simulacrum on October 02, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
The biggest problem is that the end-game enemy waves are just too punishing, to the point where you *have* to funnel all of them into a killbox to even stand a chance in hell of surviving (be that through building a giant fortress with only one entrance, or by digging deep into the mountainside).
This behavior is (or better was) caused by massive hoarding and defense spamming. A wealthier colony surely attracts more raiders (more to gain and split). An average player's measly 10 colonists were sitting atop giant heap of valuables, thousands of rations, building materials and hundreds of weapons that were all necessary. :)
I hope that with alpha seven and the change from wealth to colony head count to determine the raiders' strength, this is a thing of the distant past. On the downside, players won't stop to design kill-boxes for 300 enemy combatants, because it has worked up until now - and it will continue to work for the now smaller raiding parties. The only way of progressing (in vanilla, at least) is building things. Like kill-boxes, e.g. I fear for a much more challenging early game and a pretty relaxed (boring?) endgame. The new endgame enemy types mentioned in the change-log might shake things up, though.
But I've yet to reach that far. My two colonies were both ravaged by diseases.
Quote from: Simulacrum on October 02, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
I think this could be fixed by first severely lowering the strength of the enemy attacks, and then making the ones that do attack do things like refuse to march single-file into the kill-box. Spread the attackers out, make them attack from several different angles, and add units like sappers that blast through your walls and cause cave-ins if you've buried deep or left only one (or very few) entrance(s). If you've dug too greedily and too deep, make them spawn inside the mountain with you, and start blasting their way in your direction. Stuff like that. Anything to punish ultra-defensive strategies that rely on walls and single death-rooms to keep safe.
A better AI is always welcome and I'm pretty sure, that it waits for us somewhere down the line. But it is one of those 20% things that hog the ominous 80% of resources to be done right and according to
Ty's blog and his work method (http://tynansylvester.com/2013/12/email-dredging-cutting-polish-and-nonlinear-results/) that might still be a long way to go.
Concerning the rest of your post: Hilarity ensues and Shenanigans galore!
Regarding turrets/killboxes;
What gets me is somehow after crash-landing my colonists can just manufacture an automatic turret out of scrap metal but can't make carpet or other thing w/o research.
Automatic turrets should be the last in a line of research and/or have greater cost. So you could start with a manned machine gun (more powerful than a handheld one) > Pillbox (gives defense to colonist too) > Remote control Turret (require manning but colonist is safe) > Maybe Automatic turret.
You could have it (like a mod I've heard) that you build a turret base and then need to mount the weapon, if it cost say 3x a weapon for a basic gun turret (pistol/enfield/etc) and more for advanced one (grenades/m24/etc). You'd have to choose whether colonist would be a better use of your weaponry than a turret.
Quote from: Varnhagen on October 02, 2014, 07:48:23 PMA better AI is always welcome and I'm pretty sure, that it waits for us somewhere down the line. But it is one of those 20% things that hog the ominous 80% of resources to be done right and according to Ty's blog and his work method (http://tynansylvester.com/2013/12/email-dredging-cutting-polish-and-nonlinear-results/) that might still be a long way to go.
Yea, I didn't need to (though I did) read his thoughts on the matter to understand why such AI improvements are probably a far away off. My post didn't articulate that, though I suppose I should have. I also probably overestimate the importance of these changes as I tend to play with mods that add a greater end-game, adding way more value to my colonies than would be possible in vanilla. So far all my colonies have literally ended because they were hit by raids with so many attackers in them that I dropped to sub-1FPS and had to eventually just abandon the game. Though I suppose that's more a problem with mods than with the base game.
On another note, I have no non-trivial diagreements with the points made in your post. Mining probably is too easy; it's very fast, very easy, and very cheap. Making it more difficult would do a lot to mitigate the problem, but it doesn't solve the killbox problem. Though I suppose not everyone agree that killboxes are a problem.
Personally, I find them very boring, and I worry that they're so easy and powerful that the game's military challenges have to be balanced around it, which means that players *have* to use killboxes to survive (otherwise, the military aspect would be so easily overcome it may as well not even be there), which I really don't like.
I have managed to play Alpha 7 a little bit yesterday, and I couldn't stop thinking about this thread and our discussion about turrets. I had the same thought as you guys: how can it be that colonists cannot make carpets but can make a high-tech piece of intelligent weaponry.
Plus, from the gameplay perspective, turrets are really anticlimactic. I plop a bunch of them, lock my colonists inside during an assault, and only let them out to finish off whoever survived the turrets.
My idea on how to change it: I agree with the suggestion that turrets should require a manned console to be operated (and I think one colonist should not be able to man more than 2 or 3 turrets, max). But (and this is new) I think there should also be a second tier of research allowing you to build an automated console to operate turrets. Such a console would require an AI persona core. With Alpha 7, these can be bought from traders and are less rare than before.
I would make a mod to test these ideas out but I have no idea how to. Might try it though.
Here's a 10c idea for the thread, Wind turbines. Wind turbines provide a relatively low output (half the output of solar?), that increases during stormy weather. Cannot be placed under roofs so it must be placed outside. It is however another consistent power source besides geothermal.
More energy types are always welcome.
Some or most energy production could exhaust waste or pollution, so you'd want to place them in the open (pollution debbuf, more debuffs yay!)
So you either deal with pollution; use very specific power sources or research something like nuclear (and deal with its potential dangers); build outside where you can sprawl around and have more energy options and pollution/waste dissipation available
I don't think that there is anything that will really stop Dwarving. Let's face it, anything that is remotely realistic with combat situations will ultimately lead towards increased fortifications. There is a reason people built castles in the middle ages. To prevent going underground as the only viable option I see a few possibilities...
1) Increased world map/diplomacy interactions. If you can either pay tribute to pirates to keep them off your back or send your own raids to destroy their colony, you could create a "peaceful" world to live in...minus, of course, the mechanoids.
2) Make outside colonies less prone to attack ("Those new guys have built a fortress in the mountain...I hear they are hiding a pure gold 16 foot tall maltese falcon inside...what do you say we go see?")
3) Having more outside resources that should be protected...have raiders do more to steal food/set fields on fire, destroy walls, hunt game, mine/steal metal, and less trying to blindly charge at the nearest citizen. Having more different reasons for raids will make it harder to game the system with a single strategy.
4)Malnutrition...With the new diseases, it could be implemented so that over time eating only one or a small number of types of food leads to malnutrition...not a fatal disease, but something that weakens the individual pawns. Eating a variety of foods cures this, so if only a few types of plants can be grown hydroponically, it would encourage actually having farmland and hunting grounds which must be protected, not to mention a reason to grow all the different options out there.
So much stick, it makes my head hurt.
You want to bring colonies out into the open?
Cut back on the raids. And I don't mean a little, I don't mean fiddle numbers a tiny margin like 5% or 10%, I mean drastically. Move a decimal place at least one digit to the left. At least an order of magnitude here.
People fortify themselves in response to the threat of external attack, whether it's an omnipresent low-intensity risk, or a very rare but catastrophic risk.
Quite simply, make violence no longer the primary threat to a colony, and players will stop prepping for it like militia nut doomsday preppers camping in wilderness compounds in fear of the end of days/the collapse of social order/the attack by the gubmint which they just know is coming when they come to take their guns. Make violence rare, and make it a small attack by a few, well-equipped and well-skilled but few in number raiders.
That way, players won't feel the pressing urgency of producing doom-fort killboxes and putting anything that shoots in the hands of anyone who's able and willing to pull the trigger, and they'll be able to focus on other things, like making livable living spaces, and worrying about disease and blight and stuff.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 03, 2014, 07:10:40 PM*Good Stuff*
I feel this is going to be the logical conclusion to balance and creating a storytelling atmosphere as the game gets closer to its completion anyway.
QuoteCurrently, the game gives you way too much incentive to live within as small a space as possible. Travel time is less, organizing for defense is much easier, your pawns have more conversations, it's much easier to concentrate beauty-enhancing objects, and obviously build costs scale with the size of the building. Giving more substantial bonuses for letting your colonists live in something that actually resembles, you know, a colony (instead of the interior of a submarine) could include some carrots, such as: give outdoor spaces a higher base beauty factor, give a "nice day" bonus in favorable biomes during clear weather (and perhaps a corresponding malus for not being outside on a nice day), and maybe even give random and semi-occasional buffs like "singing in the rain" that give colonists a bonus for interacting with nature.
This has made the most sense of most anything I've read here.
I think another solution would be to make fertilizer pumps increase crop yield. That would encourage outside farming at least, and give a better utility to something I don't think sees much use otherwise. Basically, outside needs to be made more appealing because there isn't anything that is
not worth tunneling in for.
Sacrificing space and requiring heavy power draw don't mean anything if there is no appeal to having alot of space and power is easily attainable.
Scaling down the pirate zerg means that you can safely scale down energy generation. At the very least, it makes having a massive pile of turrets impractical, whereas it's all but necessary now. Would also help if the cost and performance of turrets were upgraded. Made expensive, but worthwhile. Wouldn't render them useless, and there would be fewer of them.
Basically, the scale of the threats is disproportionate to the scale of the game. Having a mob of 20+ people trek halfway across the planet to harass some random refugees who have nothing that the mob can't get for itself with drastically less effort kinda.. undermines the atmosphere. Ridiculous circumstance prompts a ridiculous response.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 03, 2014, 07:10:40 PM
So much stick, it makes my head hurt...
Raids being significantly less common will
not cause dwarving to be any less optimal as a playstyle. See my post on the last page: there are other significant advantages and efficiencies inherent to dwarving with many of the game's current mechanics, and the cost of mining out a mountain is trivial by comparison. And so long as violence remains a credible threat, even if it's less common, mountain fortresses will be the better defense. Lowering the zerg will help the killbox problem, but that's only a related issue to dwarving--I've built massive killboxes with outdoor colonies without much difficulty.
I know you hate "sticks". But game balance, (un)fortunately, is not a one-way street. If something is significant more optimal on several levels, it's unlikely that players will choose other options. In an "alpha", especially, allowing the design to stagnate by refusing to lower the optimum-ness of a playstyle directly is ill-advised.
Not to mention, though few seem to realize it, the thrill of this game comes from challenge. Everyone currently complaining about the large size of raids could
easily just lower the challenge level until the raids were a more manageable size. Yes, the game needs raiders that are smarter, rarer, and smaller. However, adding challenges to dwarving (alongside carrots for outside living) that offset or disrupt its current advantages would still be a net positive for the game, even if some people who were set in their ways get their playstyles upset in the short run.
Throwing arbitrary and gimmicky things at dwarfing won't make it any less appealing or drastically less efficient. Worst you'll do is reward having extra turrets inside of the fortress.
Scaling down the threats places less emphasis on the max efficiency approach and actually allows other playstyles to be viable.
I've decided for the time being to scale back the challenge rating. It means that I can still enjoy the game, and I can build wherever I like.
I enjoyed the challenge at Rough but with my first playthrough of Alpha 7, this proved to be a bit too rough for my liking, with raider equipment scaling up long before they became more numerous. In essence, I got what I wanted - tougher pawns instead of more numerous - but now I need to step back and re-think my defence.
It's a delicate balancing process, but I think that I know when I'm being challenged and when I'm just Monty Hauling. I did a lot of Monty Hauling in Alpha 6. ;)
Quote from: Anarak on October 03, 2014, 12:53:42 PM
More energy types are always welcome.
Some or most energy production could exhaust waste or pollution, so you'd want to place them in the open (pollution debbuf, more debuffs yay!)
So you either deal with pollution; use very specific power sources or research something like nuclear (and deal with its potential dangers); build outside where you can sprawl around and have more energy options and pollution/waste dissipation available
I think the point of all these energy types we do have is that they are meant to be clean energy solutions. Also relatively easy to build, operate and sustain. Coal, gas, nuclear, fusion would all need to be manned around the clock. Their not really feasible for small colonies, more for developed societies who need the additional power.
If we get flowing rivers, maybe we might be able to include hydro-electric as well.
Quote from: Mathenaut on October 03, 2014, 09:26:17 PMThis has made the most sense of most anything I've read here.
I think another solution would be to make fertilizer pumps increase crop yield. That would encourage outside farming at least, and give a better utility to something I don't think sees much use otherwise. Basically, outside needs to be made more appealing because there isn't anything that is not worth tunneling in for.
Sacrificing space and requiring heavy power draw don't mean anything if there is no appeal to having alot of space and power is easily attainable.
Scaling down the pirate zerg means that you can safely scale down energy generation. At the very least, it makes having a massive pile of turrets impractical, whereas it's all but necessary now. Would also help if the cost and performance of turrets were upgraded. Made expensive, but worthwhile. Wouldn't render them useless, and there would be fewer of them.
Basically, the scale of the threats is disproportionate to the scale of the game. Having a mob of 20+ people trek halfway across the planet to harass some random refugees who have nothing that the mob can't get for itself with drastically less effort kinda.. undermines the atmosphere. Ridiculous circumstance prompts a ridiculous response.
All those resources that would otherwise be wasted building elaborate defences, thick walls and mass turrets could be used to make larger buildings, nicer areas and so on (I could easily spend a good 6000 metal on defensive walls and turrets and about the same in stone). This also costs times as well, cutting stone, mining minerals, building, planning, etc.
I havnt read the whole thread, because I havnt the time to do so :).
But my input, I believe creating cave bases should cost a whole lot more than they do. Building into a mountain would take a huge amount of work even by todays standards, let alone some random guys with pick axes!!
If you only have pick axes, maybe they should only allow you to mine a certain amount of blocks into the mountain, to get deeper you would need some heavier machinery, some supports etc.
How many people die from mining even today in this day and age?? Its a very hazardous job. Mining in Rimworld is not realistic, and that's why its too easy to build a mountain base.
Quote from: TinnedEpic on October 04, 2014, 05:11:16 AM
I think the point of all these energy types we do have is that they are meant to be clean energy solutions. Also relatively easy to build, operate and sustain. Coal, gas, nuclear, fusion would all need to be manned around the clock. Their not really feasible for small colonies, more for developed societies who need the additional power.
If we get flowing rivers, maybe we might be able to include hydro-electric as well.
I get what you are saying, but most types of energy should be (and most are) scalable in size. Since this is a sci-fi game, we could agree that miniaturization and efficiency are a few levels ahead of today. We already can build thermal and solar plants out of "thin air" with what looks like a magical omni-tool, despite your skill, so should be possible to build smaller scale fusion tech, cold fusion, whatever. It's not like scientists are not already researching into this as of now.
Anyway, i just threw this one around, it's not a final or the best solution to the discussion in hand.
Quote from: Produno on October 04, 2014, 12:28:41 PM
I havnt read the whole thread, because I havnt the time to do so :).
But my input, I believe creating cave bases should cost a whole lot more than they do. Building into a mountain would take a huge amount of work even by todays standards, let alone some random guys with pick axes!!
If you only have pick axes, maybe they should only allow you to mine a certain amount of blocks into the mountain, to get deeper you would need some heavier machinery, some supports etc.
How many people die from mining even today in this day and age?? Its a very hazardous job. Mining in Rimworld is not realistic, and that's why its too easy to build a mountain base.
I mean no offense, but might I then suggest you to read whole thread? This has come up a number of times and variations.
By not reading we just bloat a topic with repeated suggestions (like the littered cheapest ideas thread), while if you read, even if you have a similar idea, you might reach a new one from the exchange.
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
NO! Dear god no don't make sieges more frequent. I find sieges to be the most game breaking things. They're just not fun. When you get to your 3rd attack they always come with mortars and a massive army. The only way to combat that is to rush mortars yourself, build 4 then just sit there shooting back, switching around who's manning the mortars so they don't panic. You do that for 30 minutes then when they're gone another one pops up instantly. I always stop playing when they start siegeing because it just brings the game to a halt. Even on basebuilder it's like this. If you remove sieges on the other hand it would make me want to build outside since then there's no need for a massive stone roof.
And like they said earlier. Making the turrets way more powerful and the AI avoid them would make me feel safe to build outside. Especially if the AI is reworked to actually stay alive and not suicide rush.
I have been following all your thoughts and like to comment on a select few.
- Simulacrum: (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6365.msg63477#msg63477) "the game's military challenges [might] have to be balanced around [killboxes]"
I sure hope, that that's not going to be the case as there is no distinct reason to build a killbox. It was a self-fullfilling prophecy and still is to a degree. The game is very well playable without killboxes, turrets and mortars. Think of it as a base way to defend.
- stefanstr: (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6365.msg63522#msg63522) "From the gameplay perspective, turrets are really anticlimactic."
That's a great observation!
- TinnedEpic: (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6365.msg63643#msg63643) "Wind turbines provide a relatively low output [and c]annot be placed under roofs"
Gameplay-wise it's just another solar powerplant. These have to be placed outside as well and need batteries for output normalization. Wind Turbines wouldn't do anything differently. And the same strategies would be applicable: Build them into a roofed outside room and give the plant-proper a no-roof zone.
- Anarak: (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6365.msg63650#msg63650) "Some or most energy production could exhaust waste or pollution, so you'd want to place them in the open [where] pollution/waste dissipation [is] available."
A neat mechanic for conventional energy production. Aforementioned wind turbines might emit noise pollution, but what drawback would the solar plant have? A more diverse energy mix wouldn't mitigate any of the disadvantages of towns or advantages of fortresses. Why build hazardous reactors when a small park of solar (plus batteries) suffices to power your every need? A reduction of solar power output and an increase in battery cost, might do the trick.
- Darth Fool: (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6365.msg63698#msg63698) "There is a reason people built castles in the middle ages."
There is a reason why most men's castles were their homes: To build a castle you needed an obscene amount of wealth and castle or city wall construction were a strain on the supporting economies for decades. I mean, why aren't you living in a bunker? Furthermore, castle life was strenuous and more often than not, castles were the deathtrap of their occupants in combat. None of these restraints are currently modeled in the game.
"Malnutrition...With the new diseases, it could be implemented so that over time eating only one or a small number of types of food leads to malnutrition..."
That's a good point. Supporting a lot of different crops with hydroponics is an expensive task. Even in the current build. There's a reason most players grow berries in their tanks.
- Aethelric: (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6365.msg63811#msg63811) "adding challenges to dwarving (alongside carrots for outside living) that offset or disrupt its current advantages would still be a net positive for the game"
That's very true. Challenges are the fabric of a game's storytelling. The linear progression of defense spamming makes the game pretty predictable. I'm glad that the changes in A7 have contributed heavily to a change in playstile for me personally. Goals and achievements have shifted and I'm thankful for a new pace and a break of routine. Other players might not take kindly to that, though. But you're absolutely spot on that routine and tradition should be the very last arguments to fall back to during alpha development.
- Mathenaut: (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6365.msg63854#msg63854)"Scaling down the threats places less emphasis on the max efficiency approach and actually allows other playstyles to be viable."
Dwarving is not a max efficiency approach and scaling down the threats doesn't change a bit for players that are set in their ways. Other playstiles are viable and I personally will never tire to repeat that, might others hear the good news.
- Anarak: (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6365.msg64017#msg64017)"Since this is a sci-fi game, we could agree that miniaturization and efficiency are a few levels ahead of today"
But are they at the disposal of an oaf, a minstrel and a lordling? I'm looking forward to whatever the future tech tree might hold or how it might be implemented. How progression will work, once Rimworld reaches a state where the emphasis shifts from "more content" to "softening the edges". I share in the skepticism of those that think that neither the knowledge nor the materials of turret, solar plant or battery construction would survive crash of an emergency pod. (Ever noticed how these pods are converted to slag?) It's not plausible that a teacher discovers on some afternoon the basic workings of photovoltaics ("research"). But we'll see how it pans out in the future.
How to bring the colonies out into the open again? I'm gonna go back to my A7 town now and ponder how living in a mountain would benefit my colonists while they are hurrying along the rose-lined pathways and admire their spacious living situation.
Quote from: Peanutcat on October 04, 2014, 06:33:16 PMNO! Dear god no don't make sieges more frequent. I find sieges to be the most game breaking things. They're just not fun. When you get to your 3rd attack they always come with mortars and a massive army. The only way to combat that is to rush mortars yourself, build 4 then just sit there shooting back, switching around who's manning the mortars so they don't panic. You do that for 30 minutes then when they're gone another one pops up instantly. I always stop playing when they start siegeing because it just brings the game to a halt. Even on basebuilder it's like this. If you remove sieges on the other hand it would make me want to build outside since then there's no need for a massive stone roof.
At least in A7, I've found that it's pretty easy to take a couple snipers and harass the besiegers until they launch a premature assault. It's actually a lot of fun to try to find the best position to take a few potshots at their gunners or at stragglers. Quick action is key, though some measure of luck also comes into play as they start fielding more M-24s.
QuoteAnd like they said earlier. Making the turrets way more powerful and the AI avoid them would make me feel safe to build outside. Especially if the AI is reworked to actually stay alive and not suicide rush.
This is the opposite of what the game needs. "Way more powerful" turrets would turn the game into boring Tower Defense with a bit of Sim City on the side. AI improvements would be nice, but there are more common sense and less structural ways to make outdoor colonies viable.
Quote from: Anarak on October 04, 2014, 05:04:33 PM
I mean no offense, but might I then suggest you to read whole thread? This has come up a number of times and variations.
By not reading we just bloat a topic with repeated suggestions (like the littered cheapest ideas thread), while if you read, even if you have a similar idea, you might reach a new one from the exchange.
It makes no difference if ive read the whole thread or not, i would have still re-iterated what i said to show my support for said suggestion.
The reason i stated i had not read the whole thread was just incase someone else had infact stated the same and i hadnt acknowledged them.
Another point i would like to bring forward, people
have to mine. Whether they want a cave base or not, they still need steel etc from mines. This makes cave bases even easier and a more viable option. Another reason imo why mining needs to be nerfed or needs some boundaries.
I agree with Produno there is no need to read the whole thread. We know that Tynan is looking at this thread so if an idea gets repeated, the chance that he will consider implementing it increases.
And it is a good point about the necessity of mining. Mining resources can lead to you having half a mountain base dug out without any conscious decision. Mountain bases are far too cheap currently, compared to outside bases. Whether you look at resources needed, safety or time, a mountain base will ALWAYS be the easier choice. Unless you are playing on a very flat map and have no other choice...
Either mining needs to be made more costly or there need to be some inherent plusses to build outside. Otherwise, it will always be better to make a mountain base.
Also: to add visibility to one of the important topics discussed here, I have created a new thread about turrets. Comment away:
http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6618.0
Quote from: stefanstr on October 05, 2014, 02:34:11 PM
I agree with Produno there is no need to read the whole thread. We know that Tynan is looking at this thread so if an idea gets repeated, the chance that he will consider implementing it increases.
And it is a good point about the necessity of mining. Mining resources can lead to you having half a mountain base dug out without any conscious decision. Mountain bases are far too cheap currently, compared to outside bases. Whether you look at resources needed, safety or time, a mountain base will ALWAYS be the easier choice. Unless you are playing on a very flat map and have no other choice...
Either mining needs to be made more costly or there need to be some inherent plusses to build outside. Otherwise, it will always be better to make a mountain base.
Also: to add visibility to one of the important topics discussed here, I have created a new thread about turrets. Comment away:
http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6618.0
Just because you find it easier to build a mountain base doesn't mean you have to, it's your choice. Changing mining won't solve anything.
How about an enemy that lives in the mountains. So mining deep into one brings the risk of antagonizing a small horde of them. They'd be a pain in the ass for early game folk to build in and cancel out the relative safety of digging deep.
A fungus that eats away at machinery and power cables. Like a weed. It could be waked, but will regrow in time. Also, let it grow enough and it will clog rooms and corridors, requiring miners to break it down; the catch? It dies instantly (vaporizing) if exposed to sunlight.
Quote from: Varnhagen on October 04, 2014, 07:20:28 PM
Dwarving is not a max efficiency approach and scaling down the threats doesn't change a bit for players that are set in their ways. Other playstiles are viable and I personally will never tire to repeat that, might others hear the good news.
The efficiency of dwarvng is sort of what's on trial here because of how efficient it is over other development avenues - ontop of nullifying arguably one of the biggest late-game threats (drop-pods onto the colony).
The only problem I see with most of the suggestions so far is that few of the solutions amount to more than just more turrets in the base or problems that will punish non-dwarving in equal measure (which defeats the purpose, frankly).
Here's my three suggestions to help this out, just thought of.
The reason why men moved out of caves was due to the inherit dangers with in it. It's damp, they are dark, and there is even potential gas leaks and cave ins.
Cave ins already occur. We could have caves, if the cave floors aren't paved over and the walls replaced with built ones, should have a damp or unclean affect that can risk sickness to colonists, and there should be pockets within caves where if you mine into them it'll unleash a pocket of poisonous gases and fumes. And on that note, there should be a musty/stale air effect that makes colonists unhappy. There should also be cases of flooding as well from liquids like water, maybe even magma flow depending on the geography.
With all of these, there can also be new utilities you can have to help you WITH caving on the other hand, or simply mining:
Canaries and other gas detection devices or alarms. Colonists could carry these birds or devices with them (as well as flashlights) and they indicate if gas leaks are imminent by the bird dying/being suffocated by the gas, giving ample time to get out of there, or the alarm for your device going off.
Some caves may even have radiation too because they might house nuclear warheads or radioactive leftovers of some civilization past, or even just radioactive materials like naturally occurring Uranium.
Didn't read the whole thread so it might have been suggested already but caravans would be a pretty cool thing too. Since we have visitors that come by foot to our colony how about having trading caravans coming too? Maybe even ships or something like that in the future?
"The reason why men moved out of caves was due to the inherit dangers with in it."
The reason why men moved out of caves is because we could build better caves. We call them houses.
Quote from: jaeden25 on October 05, 2014, 04:59:10 PM
Just because you find it easier to build a mountain base doesn't mean you have to, it's your choice. Changing mining won't solve anything.
I disagree with you, jaeden25. I am not a masochist, and if I have two choices, and one is superior in every way, I take that choice. I hate the kind of argument you're making. "If you want, you can challenge yourself and play a different way." No, I want to play the game the way it was intended. And if a mountain colony is optimal in every way, I have to assume it is the intended play style.
(One example: smooth floors don't require any resources, and yet are almost on par with carpets when it comes to boosting the mood.)
How about air vents and air filtration system for cave colonies?
That way you have to spend some additional time and resources for cave colonies.
Stale, suffocating air reduces work efficiency.
I don't see any change to mining necessary - with the new materials and everything, digging can be quite slow at times (depending on what kind of material you are digging trough)
Quote from: stefanstr on October 06, 2014, 02:32:14 AM
Quote from: jaeden25 on October 05, 2014, 04:59:10 PM
Just because you find it easier to build a mountain base doesn't mean you have to, it's your choice. Changing mining won't solve anything.
I disagree with you, jaeden25. I am not a masochist, and if I have two choices, and one is superior in every way, I take that choice. I hate the kind of argument you're making. "If you want, you can challenge yourself and play a different way." No, I want to play the game the way it was intended. And if a mountain colony is optimal in every way, I have to assume it is the intended play style.
(One example: smooth floors don't require any resources, and yet are almost on par with carpets when it comes to boosting the mood.)
You can't use that as an argument lol, This game is a sandbox, there is no 'intended' way to play. In fact do you really think the intended way to play would be to dig into a mountain and build a killbox? It's abuse of the AI, there is nothing intended about it.
Further proof that this is not the intended way to play would be to play a flat map, now tell me about how mountain colonies are the intended way to play.
Quote from: jaeden25 on October 06, 2014, 02:18:54 PMYou can't use that as an argument lol, This game is a sandbox, there is no 'intended' way to play. In fact do you really think the intended way to play would be to dig into a mountain and build a killbox? It's abuse of the AI, there is nothing intended about it.
By that argument,
everything the player does is "abuse of the AI." The player sends snipers out to harass the AI into attacking before they're ready? Abusing the siege AI! The player digs in and builds killboxes? Abusing the zergrush AI! The player rushes hydroponics tech early because they know that a hydroponics room locked deep inside their base is faster, safer and more reliable than natural growing or hunting? Abusing the food system AI!
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 06, 2014, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: jaeden25 on October 06, 2014, 02:18:54 PMYou can't use that as an argument lol, This game is a sandbox, there is no 'intended' way to play. In fact do you really think the intended way to play would be to dig into a mountain and build a killbox? It's abuse of the AI, there is nothing intended about it.
By that argument, everything the player does is "abuse of the AI." The player sends snipers out to harass the AI into attacking before they're ready? Abusing the siege AI! The player digs in and builds killboxes? Abusing the zergrush AI! The player rushes hydroponics tech early because they know that a hydroponics room locked deep inside their base is faster, safer and more reliable than natural growing or hunting? Abusing the food system AI!
No, that's not how it works. Abusing siege AI is sending 1 colonist closer to the mortar so the mortar doesn't shoot your base. Building killboxes abuses choke points to kill large amounts of enemies with little risk. The turrets or the enemy are not to blame for this, it is the choke point abuse itself. You look at any RTS game and show me one where nobody abuses choke points, you cannot blame turrets for this playstyle. Not even sure you can abuse 'the food AI' so that was kind of a ridiculous point to argue.
Something else to take note of.
When colonists are inside a spacious interior, they recieve a +5 to happyness. Yet when out in the open air with the wind blowing through their hair and fields as far as the eye can see.... Nothing.
You already get a natural feel good factor from the sun through vitamin D, plus other factors i wont go into. The only reason i can think you would be happier inside an interior is if there was a hurricane or your colony was freezing over.
Quote from: jaeden25 on October 06, 2014, 02:18:54 PM
You can't use that as an argument lol, This game is a sandbox, there is no 'intended' way to play. In fact do you really think the intended way to play would be to dig into a mountain and build a killbox? It's abuse of the AI, there is nothing intended about it.
Further proof that this is not the intended way to play would be to play a flat map, now tell me about how mountain colonies are the intended way to play.
He said: He has to
assume it is the intended way. And there sure are intended ways to do stuff in a sandbox. It's when players circumvent the expectation and start doing things the hard way just for fun's sake. Minecraft wasn't designed to be a CAD miniature model simulator. Yet people started building landmarks instead of following the survival and crafting gameplay. And that's totally fine.
And stefanstr is right when he says, that players assumption about the devs intentions influence a playing behavior. Once you see how thinks work and what mechanics are at play every sane player would stick to the well-known and obvious. Turrets are obvious. Building choke points is obvious. You can't carry your turrets to the enemy, thus the enemy has to be funneled into the gaping maw of turret-meat-grinder. Whether you do it in a mountain or roof your outside colony results in the same experience.
I have been building mountain and open forts with kill-boxes since alpha2. Only half way through alpha 6 I came on this very forum to a post, that said: "I haven't build turrets in months." In months? But how do I defend against these massive doomstacks, I pondered. It was possible in A6, and in A7 with its colonist repairability it's even easier.
It's true: Building killboxes and dwarving is choice. But not a conscious one. It is an ill-informed decision, because most facts aren't known. As you said correctly, it is exploitative to the AI but under duress most wouldn't consider changing their approach and go back to use this and only this exploit. "300 enemies! What could I do instead!? More turrets, better Boxes!"
Thus this (mostly unpalatable) thread. How to bring the colonies out in the open again? Or worded differently: How to offer a more varied gaming experience?
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 06, 2014, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: jaeden25 on October 06, 2014, 02:18:54 PM
By that argument, everything the player does is "abuse of the AI." The player sends snipers out to harass the AI into attacking before they're ready? Abusing the siege AI! The player digs in and builds killboxes? Abusing the zergrush AI! The player rushes hydroponics tech early because they know that a hydroponics room locked deep inside their base is faster, safer and more reliable than natural growing or hunting? Abusing the food system AI!
Nope, that's gaming. The particular exploit lies in the pathfinding. A band of 100+ raiders could easily penetrate 5 rows of stonewall if they were concentrating their fire on a single tile. Instead they "path" the easy way into the base, directly through the kill-zone. The AI doesn't consider getting into the firing zones of multiple turrets with no-where to stand and fight back from a less than optimal proposition. The AI doesn't know, that breaking the wall is easier. The exploit lies in covering the ground in stuff, denying the AI secure footing.
Playing the game is not exploiting the game. Rimworld ain't no hoe!
Quote from: Varnhagen on October 06, 2014, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: jaeden25 on October 06, 2014, 02:18:54 PM
You can't use that as an argument lol, This game is a sandbox, there is no 'intended' way to play. In fact do you really think the intended way to play would be to dig into a mountain and build a killbox? It's abuse of the AI, there is nothing intended about it.
Further proof that this is not the intended way to play would be to play a flat map, now tell me about how mountain colonies are the intended way to play.
He said: He has to assume it is the intended way. And there sure are intended ways to do stuff in a sandbox. It's when players circumvent the expectation and start doing things the hard way just for fun's sake. Minecraft wasn't designed to be a CAD miniature model simulator. Yet people started building landmarks instead of following the survival and crafting gameplay. And that's totally fine.
And stefanstr is right when he says, that players assumption about the devs intentions influence a playing behavior. Once you see how thinks work and what mechanics are at play every sane player would stick to the well-known and obvious. Turrets are obvious. Building choke points is obvious. You can't carry your turrets to the enemy, thus the enemy has to be funneled into the gaping maw of turret-meat-grinder. Whether you do it in a mountain or roof your outside colony results in the same experience.
I have been building mountain and open forts with kill-boxes since alpha2. Only half way through alpha 6 I came on this very forum to a post, that said: "I haven't build turrets in months." In months? But how do I defend against these massive doomstacks, I pondered. It was possible in A6, and in A7 with its colonist repairability it's even easier.
It's true: Building killboxes and dwarving is choice. But not a conscious one. It is an ill-informed decision, because most facts aren't known. As you said correctly, it is exploitative to the AI but under duress most wouldn't consider changing their approach and go back to use this and only this exploit. "300 enemies! What could I do instead!? More turrets, better Boxes!"
Thus this (mostly unpalatable) thread. How to bring the colonies out in the open again? Or worded differently: How to offer a more varied gaming experience?
Well, just because some people cannot stop themselves playing the easiest option, that doesn't warrant a change in the game I'm sorry. Changes should be restricted to GENUINE problems, not these weird complaint's where people feel they have no choice when they clearly do lol.
Choke points happen in real life, not only in games, but I agree they must happen because of other reasons other than AI pathfinding. If walls would actually resist undetermined amounts of hits (because of armor rating), i wouldn't mind foes forming a single file into your killboxes.
Either way, back to the issue, to put it simple: Lets say Mountain is Y and Flat is Z, we want to Y = Z in advantages (pros = cons), but right now Y > Z. If your game is composed of only Z, obviously you will have to build only at Z.
What we are discussing is if Y and Z are available, we should be able to choose, with similar benefits - a mix of pros and cons - either of them.
Before this debate about building into mountains/mining being harder goes further, I wish to point out that you can easily set-up fortresses outside as well as inside mountains. It takes a bit more time to set-up, and is more resource intensive. But in some ways it's much easier especially in terms of planning.
(http://i.imgur.com/iiEzmuW.png)
This was a failed attempt, but it's basically to show what I use to do with bases. This design has actually worked for me in the past. Except when it comes to fighting centipedes apparently...
Point is, people don't need to head into mountains to create fortified positions. The underlying issue isn't that mountains are more viable or even better than outside bases, it's that people are being forced to create insane defences in response to an overwhelming enemy force.
I'm all for having some hidden dangers in mountains and generally making life underground VERY different to outside life. But forcing players out into the open without solving the actual issue at hand will just make people upset and even frustrated to the point of rage quit.
@I fully agree with you TinnedEpic that forcing people out of their mountain bunkers would only lead to frustration.
That said, I don't think that the main problem here is the necessity to defend against overwhelming forces. The problem is that mountain bases are objectively better than the outside bases for several reasons. Some of them:
- overhead mountain gives safety from mortars/drop pods
- smooth stone floor is almost on par with carpets and requires no resources at all
- you need to mine anyway to dig out ores so you save labor
- you save resources because you don't need to build walls
- ...
In general more content to environmental benefits would be fantastic. I think enticing players out is the best way to get people to build in the open.
Quote from: TinnedEpic on October 06, 2014, 06:17:07 PM
I'm all for having some hidden dangers in mountains and generally making life underground VERY different to outside life. But forcing players out into the open without solving the actual issue at hand will just make people upset and even frustrated to the point of rage quit.
Nice to find little gems after so much general fluff in a thread.
Ridiculous circumstance: Ridiculous response.
When mobs of 30+ people come charging at a colony with just a fraction of their number, to claim something that is barely worth the effort of the travel, the response is to do what is necessary to win at minimal cost.
At minimal cost, because there is no easy way to determine when the next attack will hit. Turrets are fast to repair, colonists are not. Turrets are expendable, colonists are not.
Frankly, if there was some kind of Anti-air system or an ECM item that would protect from the dreaded 'drop into the middle of the colony', it might do a world of good for encouraging more outdoor play.
Quote from: Mathenaut on October 06, 2014, 08:41:41 PM
Quote from: TinnedEpic on October 06, 2014, 06:17:07 PM
I'm all for having some hidden dangers in mountains and generally making life underground VERY different to outside life. But forcing players out into the open without solving the actual issue at hand will just make people upset and even frustrated to the point of rage quit.
Nice to find little gems after so much general fluff in a thread.
Ridiculous circumstance: Ridiculous response.
When mobs of 30+ people come charging at a colony with just a fraction of their number, to claim something that is barely worth the effort of the travel, the response is to do what is necessary to win at minimal cost.
At minimal cost, because there is no easy way to determine when the next attack will hit. Turrets are fast to repair, colonists are not. Turrets are expendable, colonists are not.
Frankly, if there was some kind of Anti-air system or an ECM item that would protect from the dreaded 'drop into the middle of the colony', it might do a world of good for encouraging more outdoor play.
Enemies dropping into your base is not a big deal really, it's only a problem if you play a killbox style, but that's your own fault for playing like that.
It's now very viable to run a non-mountain base. It's also much much easier if you go with a simple setup, low wealth and low number of members.
This is the colony setup I went with, 4 members. 100 days after I launched the ship, wanted to see what would happen with no one around. Turns out a mech ship drops down, goes into extreme psychic drone mode and all visitors/passersby end up going insane moments after entering the map.
[attachment deleted by admin: too old]
Remember people the drop in your base event is based on the position of your beacon I believe. SO dont put it in yer base.
Quote from: skullywag on October 07, 2014, 02:56:27 PM
Remember people the drop in your base event is based on the position of your beacon I believe. SO dont put it in yer base.
Never knew that, interesting ;). I actually don't find drops a problem usually. I'm just one of those people who doesn't like building the starship. I want my colony to go on and on for years but the waves get too strong after a while.
Quote from: jaeden25 on October 07, 2014, 12:34:54 PM
Enemies dropping into your base is not a big deal really, it's only a problem if you play a killbox style, but that's your own fault for playing like that.
Walking them into the killbox isn't a problem. Having unlucky colonists isolated vs 20 pirates is a problem.
Quote from: skullywag on October 07, 2014, 02:56:27 PM
Remember people the drop in your base event is based on the position of your beacon I believe. SO dont put it in yer base.
I'm not so sure about this. At least in my experience, the drops have happened in my base even when the beacon is a little ways out.
Dwarfing is not a problem. Fortressing is not a problem. Convincing the AI to do stupid shit is not a problem.
What is a problem is that the player is under such extreme pressure to prepare to defend against physical assault that the only way for someone who is not a god of micromanaging combat to survive the physical assault is to do those things.
If players want to dwarf, if they want to build doom-castles, let them. Those resource expenditures are their own opportunity cost; a colonist building fortifications or digging chambers isn't erecting beds or farming.
Speaking of abusing the AI, if the AI is calculating how many forces it sends at you based solely on the potential "rewards" (IE, how "rich" the player is,) then that's effed up, because you can abuse that by keeping your colony "poor".
Bandits would rather attack poor people than nobody, and they'd rather attack nobody than heavily-armed, entrenched paranoids. They certainly wouldn't gather up an army of dozens or hundreds and attack a band of armed-to-the-teeth lunatics who've had time to prepare their defenses.
Quote from: TinnedEpic on October 07, 2014, 09:35:33 PM
Quote from: skullywag on October 07, 2014, 02:56:27 PM
Remember people the drop in your base event is based on the position of your beacon I believe. SO dont put it in yer base.
Never knew that, interesting ;). I actually don't find drops a problem usually. I'm just one of those people who doesn't like building the starship. I want my colony to go on and on for years but the waves get too strong after a while.
Last two mechanoid raids I've had they've dropped down immediately onto the beacon in full force. unfortunately for them, the new-ish health system makes it rather easy to dispatch them in close quarters.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 12:44:18 AM
Dwarfing is not a problem. Fortressing is not a problem. Convincing the AI to do stupid shit is not a problem.
What is a problem is that the player is under such extreme pressure to prepare to defend against physical assault that the only way for someone who is not a god of micromanaging combat to survive the physical assault is to do those things.
If players want to dwarf, if they want to build doom-castles, let them. Those resource expenditures are their own opportunity cost; a colonist building fortifications or digging chambers isn't erecting beds or farming.
Speaking of abusing the AI, if the AI is calculating how many forces it sends at you based solely on the potential "rewards" (IE, how "rich" the player is,) then that's effed up, because you can abuse that by keeping your colony "poor".
Bandits would rather attack poor people than nobody, and they'd rather attack nobody than heavily-armed, entrenched paranoids. They certainly wouldn't gather up an army of dozens or hundreds and attack a band of armed-to-the-teeth lunatics who've had time to prepare their defenses.
This is the best summary of the problem I have seen on this thread.
It unravels the core issue with RimWorld, I think. RimWorld is still in its infancy and I feel like it hasn't been decided yet what the focus of the game should be. Is it a tower defense game? An economical simulator? A survival game?
I think this is the fundamental question that needs to be answered first. If this game is supposed to be a tower defense game then there is nothing wrong with how things play out currently. If it is supposed to be more of an economical colony simulator, then the whole progression of assaults needs some serious rethinking. Etc.
I am actually thinking about setting up a poll to find out what aspects of the game people enjoy the most. It might help Tynan make the decision on what this game should be focusing on.
Basically, people (Bandits are ostensibly people,) shouldn't be behaving like Zerg. Mindlessly finding the most open path to the nearest person to kill/building to knocking down, rushing to within attack range and fighting until they're most or all dead is the kind of thing the Zerg would do, but not the kind of thing people would do.
Frankly, by the time you're looking at a plan for capturing the wealth which includes the lines "Gather a Vile Force of Darkness," "Assemble Siege Engines," "Traverse the moat of broken stone and metal," "Break through two heavy walls," and "overwhelm them with bodies," you should be rethinking your plans to make war with these people, unless your boss's name is literally Sauron or Sarumon or Sarah Kerrigan or Diablo.
I think raid size/tactics balancing is mostly a separate issue, one of how to defend, because it affects everyone, regardless of whether they build on the plains or under a mountain. It does affect people's decision of where to build, but it's not the deciding factor. As far as underground vs. outdoor colonies goes, the biggest issue is that there are pro's (eg. avoiding drop pod raids and mortar fire altogether, free smooth stone floors that are more beautiful than any others) for building beneath a mountain, and none for building outdoors.
One way to mitigate that would be to make a trade-off between safety underground, versus efficiency outside. For example making mud more fertile than hydroponics (I'm thinking of the Nile here, but any form of non-reproducible soil with higher fertility would have the same effect). Another way of accomplishing this (inspired by Towns, but don't hold that against it) would be to have a work speed bonus for workstations not under a mountain roof.
You could also increase the beauty of wild plants, ie. the trade-off of having a small, free mood bonus, or having to invest resources to achieve the same effect. Smooth stone should probably also be balanced down, as 5 beauty, with only a one-off time investment, compared to 2 beauty for wild grass, -1 for tall grass, or requiring constant replanting in the case of planted flowers is just another reason to stay underground. Even wood floors and carpets - beauty 3 and 4 respectively - fall short. Crops could also stand to have their beauty nerfed to a more neutral value.
Mood bonuses for just being outdoors would give people another reason to build in the open. People could also derive enjoyment/be upset by different weather types (it can't be all carrot), depending on personal preferences. For example a caveworlder might dislike sunlight, being naturally adapted to being underground, and so they get the jobs that have them indoors for long periods (warden, miner, cook, etc.), whereas an urbworlder, whose planet was so heavily polluted that seeing the sun was a rare joy, receives a higher bonus from sunlight exposure. Individuals could obviously also have preferences independent of their race etc. People farming in the sun could receive a +5 mood bonus, while your underground hydro-farmers miss out on this, but are slightly safer.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 12:44:18 AM
Speaking of abusing the AI, if the AI is calculating how many forces it sends at you based solely on the potential "rewards" (IE, how "rich" the player is,) then that's effed up, because you can abuse that by keeping your colony "poor".
Bandits would rather attack poor people than nobody, and they'd rather attack nobody than heavily-armed, entrenched paranoids. They certainly wouldn't gather up an army of dozens or hundreds and attack a band of armed-to-the-teeth lunatics who've had time to prepare their defenses.
I believe the current system employs a mixture of your colonist #, defenses and your scores, plus an ever increasing difficulty factor that as far as we know has no 'cap'. So potentially raid sizes continue to grow each wave without limit. Definitely a new algorithm is needed, tomorrow I will begin working on one for lulz. It might lead to something who knows :).
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 12:44:18 AM
Dwarfing is not a problem. Fortressing is not a problem. Convincing the AI to do stupid shit is not a problem.
What is a problem is that the player is under such extreme pressure to prepare to defend against physical assault that the only way for someone who is not a god of micromanaging combat to survive the physical assault is to do those things.
If players want to dwarf, if they want to build doom-castles, let them. Those resource expenditures are their own opportunity cost; a colonist building fortifications or digging chambers isn't erecting beds or farming.
Speaking of abusing the AI, if the AI is calculating how many forces it sends at you based solely on the potential "rewards" (IE, how "rich" the player is,) then that's effed up, because you can abuse that by keeping your colony "poor".
Bandits would rather attack poor people than nobody, and they'd rather attack nobody than heavily-armed, entrenched paranoids. They certainly wouldn't gather up an army of dozens or hundreds and attack a band of armed-to-the-teeth lunatics who've had time to prepare their defenses.
You can pause the game to micromanage, which makes things easier.
If I wanted to play a sci-fi pause-based-real-time-strategy game casting my mooks against overwhelming odds, I'd dust off UFO: Afterlight. At least then my mooks' skills increase at a pace that actually has meaning, I can give them full suites of equipment and I can research and develop effective forms of armor and weaponry.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 02:20:39 PM
If I wanted to play a sci-fi pause-based-real-time-strategy game casting my mooks against overwhelming odds, I'd dust off UFO: Afterlight. At least then my mooks' skills increase at a pace that actually has meaning, I can give them full suites of equipment and I can research and develop effective forms of armor and weaponry.
This is an important point. The scale of the raids in late-game turns this into a poor man's rts, which dominates every element of the gameplay.
Quote from: stefanstr on October 08, 2014, 04:19:54 AM
This is the best summary of the problem I have seen on this thread.
It unravels the core issue with RimWorld, I think. RimWorld is still in its infancy and I feel like it hasn't been decided yet what the focus of the game should be. Is it a tower defense game? An economical simulator? A survival game?
I think this is the fundamental question that needs to be answered first. If this game is supposed to be a tower defense game then there is nothing wrong with how things play out currently. If it is supposed to be more of an economical colony simulator, then the whole progression of assaults needs some serious rethinking. Etc.
I am actually thinking about setting up a poll to find out what aspects of the game people enjoy the most. It might help Tynan make the decision on what this game should be focusing on.
This right here!!!! This is what I've been thinking the entire time I've read through 13 pages of how to hurt dwarfing so outdoors will be a happier place. I don't know what Rimworld is designed for, at first i was like epic base builder with tower defense elements, then i started noticing pawns with thoughts/emotions now i'm thinking more along the lines of the Sims, but with the most tenacious bandits i've ever seen in any game period. I mean come on if you've sent over 10k of your men into a zone and only 50 or so come limping back how many more times are you going to toss meat into that grinder?
Now I'm seeing people that want auto turrets out and strong defense tactics demolished so that outdoor "castles" can feel more feasible and want it to be completely about micromanaging your 20 people to fight off the horde of bandits that for some reason can peg a colonist in the head 9/10 times with lvl 4 shooting skill. I like some of the ideas especially some of the harder to mine ideas, but you have to consider it's a sand box there is no real way to play that is incorrect. If you are in a zone that is flat with no mountain then you build on the surface, if you have a mountain then you have to work with it and turn that into your fortress.
What is Rimworld's gameplay supposed to be? I'll be honest the reason i push so hard for defense is because the game feels like a base defense game, build enough turrets to protect the squishy pawns and pray they hold so i don't lose "precious" man power to joe smoe's random lucky gun shot from an open doorway around a corner and into Bill's head putting him down for the count after he's unloaded 20 plus rounds in that corridor while behind cover in a strategically superior position.
I know right now that getting off the planet to safety is the end game goal now, but I think there is so much more potential in just allowing players to sandbox it up and build a colony out of survivors eat up the resources and then offer the ability to move on the map with your collected party.
To go back on topic though, everyone is considering how to make A(above ground base building) = B (below ground base building). The problem I see is that A can't be = to B. Here is my suggestion go with the making it harder to mine after the first few tiles in a mountain, and the cost wood to tunnel as a roof type ideas. Actually what's cool about the roof type ideas if you give the option when tunneling to use a specific type of material to reinforce your tunnels they should be more stable make this the only way to have larger rooms inside the mountains.
I would prefer to not go with the "graboid" idea because lets be honest having a random chance a monster can attack you in your safest rooms is a nightmare and would instead of making both options viable would make tunneling rooms out a terrible idea and if they're able to get you in a tunnel why would going through the man made floor of your shack be any harder to penetrate?
Just making tunnels harder to make wouldn't be enough though because outside is still so much harder to generate a safe zone where pawn loss is prevented and there aren't any benefits for just being outside. Why doesn't a person that's been in a tunnel all day get a +emotion when they go outside into the sun?
Here are the suggestions that I like a lot when it comes to this part using the buff system just buff peoples thoughts with a few simple "light breeze feels good" "being in the sun feels amazing" "I like a little spring rain". now when it's thunderstorming there should also be negatives it wouldn't be fair without them, but the negatives shouldn't be so bad that they cause a phsychotic break because someone is a little hungry and it started raining. This would require a lot of balancing. Also I'm pretty sure it's in work, but a shield generator would be amazing to stop drop in attacks on above ground colonies.
A side note on the shield generator to bring out in the open colonies more viable and to give something mountain colonies can't use make shield generators that stop drop ins have like beacons that determine the shields layout, but it has to be in a circle format with nothing but open skies on all points and be a certain distance from mountains.
I just hope it doesn't get to the point where we use the "Stick" to beat dwarfs into going outside in a sandbox where their gameplay was supposed to be there choice anyway :D .
I like the idea of shield generators.
You should learn to divide your text into shorter sentences, though. It was a little painful to read.
I'm a sucker for unwieldy sentences, too. You go, pal!
I think there are a couple misconceptions in this thread. Most people argue from a "what is" PoV, while I think it'd be better to consider "what should be".
We all know, that the game is in an Alpha state, so no finished features, barely any balancing and lots of placeholders. If it is possible to spam 20 turrets into an enclosed space and the AI falling for it, the only way to ramp up the challenge beyond laughable is by increasing the numbers of attackers. Sure, the enemy numbers need to be nerfed, but the massive attacks are just a symptom of lacking gameplay, content, choice, AI and balancing. Arguing that the enemy numbers need to be reduced is thus a moot point. Thus I argued, that mountain and open colonies should differ gameplay-wise heavily.
Quote from: stefanstr on October 09, 2014, 04:21:33 AM
I like the idea of shield generators.
You should learn to divide your text into shorter sentences, though. It was a little painful to read.
Yeah I'm a terrible writer and i ramble half the time, but thanks for taking the time to read it though :D.
Quote from: stefanstr on October 08, 2014, 04:19:54 AM
This is the best summary of the problem I have seen on this thread.
It unravels the core issue with RimWorld, I think. RimWorld is still in its infancy and I feel like it hasn't been decided yet what the focus of the game should be. Is it a tower defense game? An economical simulator? A survival game?
I think this is the fundamental question that needs to be answered first. If this game is supposed to be a tower defense game then there is nothing wrong with how things play out currently. If it is supposed to be more of an economical colony simulator, then the whole progression of assaults needs some serious rethinking. Etc.
I am actually thinking about setting up a poll to find out what aspects of the game people enjoy the most. It might help Tynan make the decision on what this game should be focusing on.
I think it works fine as both, really. The difficulty settings allow you to pace the game as you want, if you pick an easier difficulty or a less combat focused AI, you get a more economic based game. If you pick a more combat focused AI or harder difficulty, you get more of a focus on the real time tactics aspect of the game.
That's sort of the whole point of the game, to my eyes, it does both well. There are lots of games that do one or the other, but few that do both. Making it onto one or the other would rather detract from the game's uniqueness, I think, nor do I really see a need to do it when you can already make the choice yourself when you start a colony.
Has anyone who complained about the difficulty of outside colonies played them since A7? I personally was an avid builder of mountain bases because outside bases were too difficult. However, since A7, I have been able to create several successful outside colonies (without mortars or turrets). I feel that the change in how the difficulty scales has really cleared this whole issue up. Am I wrong?
Quote from: Matthiasagreen on October 09, 2014, 01:06:36 PM
Has anyone who complained about the difficulty of outside colonies played them since A7? I personally was an avid builder of mountain bases because outside bases were too difficult. However, since A7, I have been able to create several successful outside colonies (without mortars or turrets). I feel that the change in how the difficulty scales has really cleared this whole issue up. Am I wrong?
It is definitely gotten easier. What hasn't changed is that mountain colonies are objectively cheaper to build.
Quote from: Matthiasagreen on October 09, 2014, 01:06:36 PM
Has anyone who complained about the difficulty of outside colonies played them since A7? I personally was an avid builder of mountain bases because outside bases were too difficult. However, since A7, I have been able to create several successful outside colonies (without mortars or turrets). I feel that the change in how the difficulty scales has really cleared this whole issue up. Am I wrong?
Actually I just got nailed 2 hours ago xD. Mind you it wasn't really due to the A.I getting too strong, more so the A.I got incredibly lucky. I had 5 colonists versus 5 besiegers, 3 of theirs were equip with M-24's and they managed to score some incredibly lucky shots. I lost 3 colonists to 1 hit torso shots and 1 had his leg arm and jaw blown off. I did successfully drive them off in the end, So that was all good. I believe the A.I did get a bit easier in terms of numbers which is good.
It was more that the A.I didn't let up. Now with 3 (the other came from a slaver for those wondering where the math is) colonists, 1 that is an empath the A.I sends a good 5 raiders to kill what remains. With only 2 viable fighters verses 5 raiders one which is already decked out in power armour, helmet and M-24, I feel a bit overwhelmed by it.
I mean it is more than plausible that I just need practise, but personally I would like it if the A.I takes it a tiny bit easier on me when it's just delt me a hard blow.
I've done some outside colonies in jungle.
I trend to tech quick to stonecutting and wall off my colony. Not a world of difference vs dwarving, save for the overhead vulnerability.
You want to know what would bring me out into the open?
Defenses.
Defenses that work. Moats that bandits can't cross without something ridiculous like actually building a bridge. Turrets and/or pre-prepared manned firing positions that are so deadly that only morons would charge into them. Remember WWI trench warfare? Remember why everybody trenched up? It's because going over the line was suicide, because machine gun fire mows down massed infantry like a combine harvester mows down wheat. Anti-aircraft guns that can shoot down drop pods entirely, heavy energy blasters that shoot explosions that can wreck heavy enemies and get heavy splash damage on massed infantry. Bring back my freaking minefields.
If I don't feel safe coming out, nothing's going to make me come out; that is, if I don't feel that outside attacks are a manageable thing without going into pause-based real-time strategy, I'm not coming out. No amount of undermountain stick will get me out, but if you apply so much as to make an undermountain base impossible whilst leaving me feel that an undersky base is impossible, I just won't play - I will, however, slag the game off to all and sundry who will listen, because I will feel cheated.
I feel that there are many who share my opinion on play styles. I agree with pretty much everything that Johny17202 posted (which I feel was a fine post BTW). I love Dwarving and the fact that the Rimworld site states that Dwarf Fortress was one of its many inspirations. The promo videos occasionally show Dwarving styles in addition to open colonies.
I do feel compelled to point out, that I believed that the point of Rimworld was to create a thriving colony, not a military outpost or base. I'm fine with pirate assaults occasionally, but I really want diplomacy and trade to be a viable play style as well. Let me negotiate and trade with the visitors that come through. Let me communicate with the pirates and negotiate a cease-fire. Let me dwarf if I want to and honestly, if I crashed on a planet with two other people, I'd immediately look for a cave to hunker down in. I wouldn't say, hey let's set up camp out in the middle here without knowing what predators or the weather may be.
Like others have said, this is a wonderful sandbox with a ton of opportunities in front of it. Let the players play as they enjoy. If I want combat, let it happen. If I want to play peaceful, let me have the option to try and broker peace. Maybe I want a mix. Don't put in monsters whose sole purpose is to drive players out of the mountains. My play style isn't really into RTSs, and the last update did make it more manageable with the changes to the assaults, but it can still get ridiculous near the end.
Just my two cents. I still love Rimworld and look forward to where this game is going.
@Arcfault - good points about dwarfing and about creating a thriving colony vs military outpost.
I feel like we are lacking a storyteller based on the former goal. You could say Phoebe, but Phoebe's underlying logic is the exact same as Cassandra's. The only difference being that the assaults don't happen as frequently.
I feel we will need some more variation between the storytellers down the line, taking more factors into account. An example off the top of my head:
Trevor the Trader: drives the story around wealth and prosperity (e.g., if he sees you are a major cotton producer, the prices of cotton could start dropping as a negative event; raiders would have a new goal to steal your goods... stuff like that) - this storyteller wouldn't try to screw you over militarily but would aim at creating interesting economical challenges
Diana the Diplomat - the main tension in the game would be around foreign relations. I assume there will be some more evolved diplomacy system down the line, and this storyteller would focus on that.
I like the idea of a force field generator of some kind that requires being deployed in an open space. If it deflected mortar shells and drop pods (presumably they'd end up in an unblocked square outside the force field), it'd help with the biggest reasons for people to automatically decide to burrow.
Maybe it could be something like the Gungan force fields in Star Wars, where it blocks shots going in either direction, but can be slowly walked through (giving the border square a low walk speed like shallow water).
Quote from: stefanstr on October 08, 2014, 04:19:54 AM
This is the best summary of the problem I have seen on this thread.
It unravels the core issue with RimWorld, I think. RimWorld is still in its infancy and I feel like it hasn't been decided yet what the focus of the game should be. Is it a tower defense game? An economical simulator? A survival game?
I think this is the fundamental question that needs to be answered first. If this game is supposed to be a tower defense game then there is nothing wrong with how things play out currently. If it is supposed to be more of an economical colony simulator, then the whole progression of assaults needs some serious rethinking. Etc.
I am actually thinking about setting up a poll to find out what aspects of the game people enjoy the most. It might help Tynan make the decision on what this game should be focusing on.
Well, yeah, this is the core of my thoughts that I've been posting here for a while. Just saying :P
I like the poll idea, I'm curious to what people think the game should be directed to. Might be worthwhile to discuss first as to what to exactly ask 'tho.
Quote from: stefanstr on October 10, 2014, 08:22:11 AM
@Arcfault - good points about dwarfing and about creating a thriving colony vs military outpost.
I feel like we are lacking a storyteller based on the former goal. You could say Phoebe, but Phoebe's underlying logic is the exact same as Cassandra's. The only difference being that the assaults don't happen as frequently.
I feel we will need some more variation between the storytellers down the line, taking more factors into account. An example off the top of my head:
Trevor the Trader: drives the story around wealth and prosperity (e.g., if he sees you are a major cotton producer, the prices of cotton could start dropping as a negative event; raiders would have a new goal to steal your goods... stuff like that) - this storyteller wouldn't try to screw you over militarily but would aim at creating interesting economical challenges
Diana the Diplomat - the main tension in the game would be around foreign relations. I assume there will be some more evolved diplomacy system down the line, and this storyteller would focus on that.
I like where your going with this i think some varied storytellers would definately be good, I don't know though it kind of feels like all of that should be part of every game not just specific storytellers you know the whole package deal like survive bandit attacks, make deals with other factions, build your own faction and deal with pirates, natural disasters, diplomacy and trade all in one awesome package.
@Johny
I know. My examples were very poor - first thing that came to my mind at the moment.
Of course, every game should have every type of challenge. I think that storytellers give us a unique opportunity: we could decide upfront what we want the *story* to revolve around.
E.g., if I want to build a cotton plantation and see how well I can do financially, I don't want Cassandra send me to an early grave. What I want, though, is challenges related to trade.
Conversely, if I want to see how well I can defend against ever increasing attacks, then Cassandra is perfect.
Quote from: stefanstr on October 10, 2014, 08:22:11 AM
@Arcfault - good points about dwarfing and about creating a thriving colony vs military outpost.
I feel like we are lacking a storyteller based on the former goal. You could say Phoebe, but Phoebe's underlying logic is the exact same as Cassandra's. The only difference being that the assaults don't happen as frequently.
I feel we will need some more variation between the storytellers down the line, taking more factors into account. An example off the top of my head:
Trevor the Trader: drives the story around wealth and prosperity (e.g., if he sees you are a major cotton producer, the prices of cotton could start dropping as a negative event; raiders would have a new goal to steal your goods... stuff like that) - this storyteller wouldn't try to screw you over militarily but would aim at creating interesting economical challenges
Diana the Diplomat - the main tension in the game would be around foreign relations. I assume there will be some more evolved diplomacy system down the line, and this storyteller would focus on that.
I agree that having storytellers geared to non-com play styles would better cater to those players who want a more "relatively" peaceful playtime. I don't think combat should be removed completely as it can create tension and reflect the pioneer aspect that many "sci-fi" colonies would face. But I also agree with stefanstr, in that these features should also be factored into the other storytellers as well as these are key gameplay mechanics that would really spin some events around.
I would say that the storytellers should weight the AI preferences and events based upon their preferred story guidelines ("Trevor the Trader" for instance, wouldn't remove pirates or bandits and mechanoids from the game, he would just have their AIs behave differently and be more open to diplomacy versus Cassandra or Randy).
Also, I agree 100% that there does need to be more technological research options for defensive tech. Instead of just an increase in shot count to turrets, how about different weapon turrets such as plasma based (less ammo based but higher energy requirement), mines, AA/flak weaponry, windows (both to increase moods for those of us who dwarf and to both provide defensive points and possible access points for invaders) and shields. I would also hope that eventually tech could be stacked on items (e.g. turrets with faster cool down, higher ammo count, and laser or computer controlled targeting from a central colony CPU core. All of those researched as individual tech).
@Arcfault. I fully agree that every storyteller should give you every kind of challenge. Without any assaults, the game would become boring for sure.
Regarding windows, I really cannot understand why they aren't in the game yet.
Edit: people are using butchering tables as makeshift windows anyway, so why not give us the real thing?
Quote from: stefanstr on October 11, 2014, 06:33:11 AM
@Arcfault. I fully agree that every storyteller should give you every kind of challenge. Without any assaults, the game would become boring for sure.
I strongly disagree with this. Several (if not most) strategy games usually involves at least a military and/or economical approach, although of course its usually a combination of both.
Games like stronghold and space colony have whole branches dedicated to economical missions and they IMO are better than the military ones.
Quote from: Johnny Masters on October 12, 2014, 04:35:35 PM
Quote from: stefanstr on October 11, 2014, 06:33:11 AM
@Arcfault. I fully agree that every storyteller should give you every kind of challenge. Without any assaults, the game would become boring for sure.
I strongly disagree with this. Several (if not most) strategy games usually involves at least a military and/or economical approach, although of course its usually a combination of both.
Games like stronghold and space colony have whole branches dedicated to economical missions and they IMO are better than the military ones.
Your point being? I am not quite sure what you are disagreeing with.
That the game need assaults to be fun, as in every single game/game mode/ director you have to have assaults to have a fun experience.
I don't even build underground. Individual structures and clever micromanagement during assaults makes my colonies last. I don't build sandbags either.
what director, challenge setting and alpha version do you play?
I just recently started building an exterior base, and I find it much more pleasing than an underground base, simply because it's faster to build a structure. If I need a new room I don't have to mine out an area to place it.
That being said, I think mountain bases are easier defensively.
However, to draw people out I think something along the lines of using water could work. As it stands, water is just assumed provided. However, were the player forced to collect water/filter water it would drag a new dynamic into play. If you could build a quick filtration system on a swamp to create drinking water, but could also build a much more expensive and inefficient well to drill the aquifer, it would force players to make a decision. If digging the well were to take forever through stone, and less time through dirt, it would encourage outdoor building.
Thanks,
EBrown
I am pretty newb to the game, so forgive me if I'm missing some fundamental stuff that would change these ideas.
I personally think mining into mountains is a little too easy. Once your Colony is a decent size, you can cut out entire mountains in a day or two in game. Which is just overboard I think.
Perhaps add another type of rock that is deeper into mountains that is harder to cut through (or better yet, requires a special tool, or dangerous explosives) so that as you get deeper in, the rock becomes harder and takes longer to mine.
I thought sieges were awesome, it gave me another idea. How about hunters and other specialised groups landing on your map, and setting up their own base to do their own things. They could be neutral or hostile, but not attack you, instead just defend their area. They could start roaming the map taking resources or killing deer/boar which could inhibit your colony requiring you to take action against them, or change your colony to suit.
Quote from: TemplarGFX on October 12, 2014, 09:19:45 PM
Perhaps add another type of rock that is deeper into mountains that is harder to cut through (or better yet, requires a special tool, or dangerous explosives) so that as you get deeper in, the rock becomes harder and takes longer to mine.
There was originally Mining charges in the game, but they were rarely used for actual mining and were instead used as improvised minefields.
As for the different materials, there already is different materials strewn throughout the mountains but I'm unsure if they take different times to mine through.
Quote from: stefanstr on October 09, 2014, 01:46:41 PM
It is definitely gotten easier. What hasn't changed is that mountain colonies are objectively cheaper to build.
You sure about that?
Chopping wood and making houses is faster than mining. Especially if you want to replace all the room/corridor walls with proper ones (and you should.. leaving bare rock should have an ugly enviroment penalty)
Leaving bare rock should have an ugly environment penalty, I agree, but it doesn't. And the smooth floor is the cheapest and most beautiful floor. I never build proper walls and use power conduits instead. Much cheaper and has no downsides.
It does have one, time. But in the long run agreed it's not a huge deal.
Actually I was beginning to think of new ways to bring colonies out into the open (indeed was inspired by posts in the general section), how about we start some more community orientated challenges/things? I mean people seem to like them. How about We start a challenge where people make an open colony and survive using it. Video's, screenshots, story telling can be accepted.
Personally I was thinking of starting up a 'creative colony' thread. Instead of making a fortress or showing off their impressive kill zones people can work hard to make colonies that look impressive or creative. Out of the ordinary colonies and we can start showing them off. Idk maybe the transition should start with us until more solid means are created :P.
Not a bad idea, TinnedEpic.
There's a few problems which I'm not sure are problems individually but together they quickly narrow the range of "viable" ways to defend yourself (without getting a bunch of your colonists seriously crippled every fight).
Range trumps everything as far as I can see. I use miniguns to suppress large groups but besides that M-24 is where it's at. Because hits tend to be easily crippling or lethal (even in a full suit of armor), there's a pretty huge combat focus on avoiding fire above all else. Since your #1 concern is making sure you take the least hits possible because they are pretty unforgiving, people play hyperdefensively.
Drops inside your home are also a huge deterrent to relying too much on the outside.
A few options to alleviate that would be:
-lower the overall lethality of bullet hits, at least when it comes to crippling shots.
-make replacement parts easier to obtain (they're relatively scarce right now if your colony grows to say 15+ people)
-make recruiting/training bodies for military purposes a little bit easier (sooo many tribesmen you can't do anything with because they just won't be convinced..), so your militia is a little more disposable.
-nerf the M-24 somehow (could just make it significantly more rare/expensive, including on raiders) so combat can evolve past sniper wars.
-reduce the sheer number of raiders. the bullet spam combined with high lethality WILL make people play hyper-defensive.
-more outside defensive options so fights don't HAVE to be a bullet storm.
For the record all these impressions are from playing overwhelmingly Cassandra at normal (100%) difficulty.
It's a combination of factors making this playstyle attractive, but if I had to summarize, it's high lethality + big raider numbers (bulletstorm) + each colonist even mediocre ones are highly valuable (because not that easy to replace if they die) + M24 OP
So people hide in the mountain and setup kill boxes.
To draw a parallel to DF (and DF isn't the easiest to begin with), it's easier to keep your dwarves from dying in combat in DF, especially if they're equipped properly (in Rimworld equipment **seems** to not make things much safer, even with power armor/helmet and hyperweave/devilstrand everywhere else, it's still very common to take a crippling shot).
It's also easier to replace your guys in DF because of migrants, and the slave traders / incapacitated enemies of Rimworld are relatively scarce in comparison.
DF also has a lot more defensive tools to play with. We're still running on just walls, turrets and pewpewing colonists at this point. The biggest incentive to actively engage (besides sieges) is that there are no options for training outside of combat besides hunting.
All in all I find Rimworld a lot less forgiving when it comes to combat and replacing colonists (at least on default difficulty) and it's not surprising at all people would choose to tunnel in.
IMO the problem right now ,with this inside/outside colonies is based on the threats of the game.
So, we have two choices, live inside a mountain, in a cave system. Sounds cool, safe, but enclosed. Or we can start our settlement on the outside, building structures, houses, walls... Both are interesting.
Always when we start a new game (in my case), we plan where we want to be. So we have to make the choice based on the pros and cons. And right now, we can eat, sleep, grow food, get resources anywhere. The game can only scare us with large raids, mechanoids... only hostile and combat dangers. And inside the mountain, we are far safer. The fate of the colony depends on this dangers, nothing else can stop us.
Rimworld need to focus on develop more dangers, real dangers, because without raiders, mechanoids, zerg swarms of squirrels, the game it's very very easy. Less combat and more survival, focus on managing our resources, trading, diplomacy... maybe more weight on relationships between colonist.
Of course, this needs to be added without overwriting. Sometimes I want to develop a peaceful colony focused on farming and a enjoying quiet life, and sometimes I want to survive against raiders, waiting for a harder assault, preparing my defenses, healing the wounded, and praying to survive just one more day.
(Sorry for my horrible English, so much time without writing...)
The mountains could contain some secret caves with alien lifeforms inside, of course with a restriction on how many tiles "deep" so you don't immediately dig into some killer cave monster at the start of the game. Or they could be spawned by the event generator according to whatever conditions. Now that would make both the mountain base, and the game in general, more interesting :)
More tension when exploring and creates a need to have a security plan when digging overzealously, because you might just pop into some nasty stuff.
I believe we are focusing this topic on making the life underground harder, than making a interesting option living on the outside. Both ways may be right, if you add bad things inside the caves, you may think that its not so bad at all live under the sky. But give reasons to live outside it's cool too.
I think with the current state of raider numbers / ease of losing limbs even in full armor / relative scarcity of replacements for dead colonists or just parts, no matter how much "harder" you make it to go with the mountain option, a majority of people will still go for that and try to work around the extra challenges.
As I said, combat wise it's substantially less forgiving than your average raid in DF (at least if you send people out to fight), for a number of reasons.
Quote from: Noobshock on October 15, 2014, 08:23:37 PMAs I said, combat wise it's substantially less forgiving than your average raid in DF (at least if you send people out to fight), for a number of reasons.
Right. Therein is the problem. Fights are ultra-deadly, enemies come in just laughably huge waves, colonists are very hard to replace. and, most damningly of all, we have no choice
but to fight, because these colonists are apparently incapable of engineering a drawbridge and a moat, or of simply buying the enemies off.
Whereas in DF, you can say "Well, that looks like a huge pile of shit I don't want to have to deal with. All Dwarves inside, the doors are locked, and the drawbridges are retracted. We'll wait them out."
There
are downsides to waiting out a siege in DF, of course: no outside agriculture can be conducted, trade cannot be conducted (and traders who will show up will be attacked and likely killed by the enemy, for which they will blame you uninvolved though you may have been,) migrants who arrive will be at the mercy of the enemy, etc. But the biggest upshot is that the enemy can't get in and wreck all your shit.
Need to make outside more appealing, not just make mountains suck. Latter won't work.
Need a better way to work down the raider scaling. Having 20+ raiders storming your base doesn't make for wanting to hang outside and not killbox.
Quote from: Mathenaut on October 15, 2014, 09:32:01 PMNeed to make outside more appealing, not just make mountains suck. Latter won't work.
This has been the entire crux of my argument. Making the mountain suck won't make people move outside. People are willing to endure any amount of suck if it's the difference between living (and sucking) and dying (maximum suck.) If the mountain becomes so sucky that it becomes impossible to survive in, people will just stop playing because fuck that noise.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 15, 2014, 09:26:55 PM
Right. Therein is the problem. Fights are ultra-deadly, enemies come in just laughably huge waves, colonists are very hard to replace. and, most damningly of all, we have no choice but to fight, because these colonists are apparently incapable of engineering a drawbridge and a moat, or of simply buying the enemies off.
Whereas in DF, you can say "Well, that looks like a huge pile of shit I don't want to have to deal with. All Dwarves inside, the doors are locked, and the drawbridges are retracted. We'll wait them out."
There are downsides to waiting out a siege in DF, of course: no outside agriculture can be conducted, trade cannot be conducted (and traders who will show up will be attacked and likely killed by the enemy, for which they will blame you uninvolved though you may have been,) migrants who arrive will be at the mercy of the enemy, etc. But the biggest upshot is that the enemy can't get in and wreck all your shit.
^ this.
there was a suggestion a long time ago about adding mechanisms found in DF and gnomoria. like pistons that can move walls (like minecraft secret doors), etc.
heck, even embrasures is a better option than sandbags. (i generally use sandbags like a "speed" trap anyways)
remote controlled land mines was removed 'coz they used to be OP (though not sure if it's still OP with mechs around or maybe just make normal landmines that doesn't distinguish friend or foe)
The issue here is really a stress problem. It is very stressful on a colonist to walk clear across the map to do anything. The colonists need a comfy bed and a hot meal. When they don't find that out in the wild they will get grumpy. We need a survival backpack with a tent and survival rations (that are lighter than regular rations) so that it can provide temporary comfort to traveling colonists. Then there has to be a need to go there. Maybe rework the research system so that the tree is actually out in the world with discoverable relics. However you need to research the artifact for several days which will require some colonists to be away from home for an extended period. Set up a little tent and pack some food for a week so the team can get the research done and return with (insert researchable item here)
I do quite like the idea of research being somehow tied to exploration and creating another incentive for stepping outside, whatever form that might take (finding artifacts sounds pretty cool from a flavor standpoint). Even if just buffs that boost research speed from "noticeably slow" (it really is rather quick to burn through the whole tree right now) to "comfortable speed". But that's just a very basic idea.
I like your ideas Jstank. Pretty innovative - I don't think any of this has been suggested before.
Tying research to exploration would make perfect sense.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 15, 2014, 09:26:55 PM
Quote from: Noobshock on October 15, 2014, 08:23:37 PMAs I said, combat wise it's substantially less forgiving than your average raid in DF (at least if you send people out to fight), for a number of reasons.
Right. Therein is the problem. Fights are ultra-deadly, enemies come in just laughably huge waves, colonists are very hard to replace. and, most damningly of all, we have no choice but to fight, because these colonists are apparently incapable of engineering a drawbridge and a moat, or of simply buying the enemies off.
Whereas in DF, you can say "Well, that looks like a huge pile of shit I don't want to have to deal with. All Dwarves inside, the doors are locked, and the drawbridges are retracted. We'll wait them out."
There are downsides to waiting out a siege in DF, of course: no outside agriculture can be conducted, trade cannot be conducted (and traders who will show up will be attacked and likely killed by the enemy, for which they will blame you uninvolved though you may have been,) migrants who arrive will be at the mercy of the enemy, etc. But the biggest upshot is that the enemy can't get in and wreck all your shit.
This right here. I loved and hated DF for the difficulty, but also the dearth of options that I could perform. I could dam a river, control where it flowed or use it as a weapon. I could huddle up inside or mass an army and storm out to meet the enemy.
Rimworld definitely needs alternate ways of gaining colonists such as reproduction, visitors being so impressed they want to stay, developing advanced methods of trade and communication to encourage new residents. Additionally, I mentioned previously we definitely need diplomatic capabilities, cause right now the grist for the mill feel of the wave after wave simply makes things feel like one long, drawn out Onslaught mode.
The one thing I keep having to remind myself is that Rimworld is super-early in development. I hope that many of the DF features we're used to come in.
I think you mean "plethora" of options, not "dearth." But yeah.
The biggest problem with being outside is that fire is the big unquestioned danger in the room.
I read somewhere that everything in Rimworld exists in two states, on fire and about to be on fire. That's not far from the truth.
Being outside risks having your colony burn to the ground too easily. A random lightning strike, a raider punching the wall on fire, batteries that will explode and set fires.
If things weren't so extremely flammable, it'd be more reasonable to build outside. As it is, cave building mostly alleviates that problem.
This isn't to say we need to remove fire all together, but it's such a hazard and the tools to combat it are nonexistant outside of "giant" nonflammable surfaces as fire breaks and pawns who will run through fire, set themselves on fire, trying to stamp out fire. There need to be fire hoses.
I wouldn't say fire is the #1 problem.
I would put it as a very close #2, but fire can even be a bigger problem underground, unless you've built your space dwarf fortress specifically in a manner as to impede the spread of fire.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 19, 2014, 03:15:57 PM
fire can even be a bigger problem underground
How do you end up with things on fire underground? You have rock walls. I've always been of the impression that that's the point building underground. At most, a table and chairs might burn and maybe a lamp if it's close enough. Maybe a hydroponic room if you use one, but I don't usually.
Quote from: dd0029 on October 19, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 19, 2014, 03:15:57 PM
fire can even be a bigger problem underground
How do you end up with things on fire underground? You have rock walls. I've always been of the impression that that's the point building underground. At most, a table and chairs might burn and maybe a lamp if it's close enough. Maybe a hydroponic room if you use one, but I don't usually.
I said "depending on how you build." And remember that if nothing else, power conduits will burn. So will walls, if you use them instead of power conduits lying on the floors. And doors, and furniture.
Just take a page from Minecraft: put patches of lava in the mountain. Your miners could outrun it, but not your base.
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
Quoting a post from a month ago here but I have to say, that seems like some really bizarre logic and I'm surprised almost nobody commented on this. Sieges are a threat against which the only effective defense is dwarfing. They are part of the problem and making them more common would only force even more people underground because they don't want to deal with the tedium of having mortars bombard their colony and/or conducting counter-battery fire. I'm really surprised to hear they were intended to put the player on the offensive because even though I'm pretty decent at the combat in this game it never occurred to me to actually assault the fortified position with raiders outnumbering me at least 5:1 when it was so much easier to just put up mortars of my own.
Maybe if it was more like the crashed ship part in that attacking it is manageable (meaning less raiders, though I haven't played much Alpha 7 yet so I don't know how the new balance is yet) while the threat increases constantly from a mere annoyance to an actual threat (maybe have them mine surrounding metal to build more mortars or something?) it would be more enticing to go out and attack them although it still wouldn't affect dwarves since they're still immune to mortar fire. Maybe if the whole "intelligent raids" thing everyone keeps mentioning was implemented they could have some way of recognizing underground bunkers and instead of shooting at colonists just take out aboveground defenses/energy production and then assault the now defenseless colony entrance to steal from the trade zone. That way digging in would protect your colonists from sieges, but not your infrastructure and resources and you might end up having to defend against the eventual raider assault manually.
On that note I also want to mention the paradrops right on top of you as another major reason that I think makes people want to hide in bunkers more than anything. Considering how killbox-oriented the defense in this game is (something that I won't elaborate on since it's been done to death in this thread by now) enemies that can just circumvent your killbox are a terrifying prospect to players and the only effective defense is to again, dig into a mountain.
What I think the problem here is that those two threats are both very potent and nearly omnipresent. Raider attacks are a common occurrence and a good portion of them will be sieges or drop pods so it evokes this player mentality of having to constantly be prepared for massive assaults from without and within or face certain annihilation. Maybe if these attacks were toned down in severity (and by that I don't mean just less attackers but more of the intelligent raids mentioned above, so for example if you kill off half the raiders but have to fall back and they just beeline for your stockpile you lost some potentially critical resources but your colonists survived and "defeat" becomes a less daunting prospect) and frequency to make them more of a rare threat rather than a constant annoyance players wouldn't feel the need to be constantly prepared for hordes of barbarians charging their gates to wipe them out to the last colonist and we would see more people choose less defense oriented playstyles.
That being said you have to keep in mind that this game is still an alpha and I imagine the overall gameplay still has a long ways to go and will evolve as new features are added. Right now raiders have to be omnipresent because there are only two things to do in the game, building and fighting and taking one of these out is going to become very boring quickly. But once new aspects like diplomacy or exploration or whatever else is on Tynan's to-do list are added it will give players more stuff to do and the constant fighting can give way to a more diverse gameplay experience.
So there it is, a wall of text way more massive than I originally intended and probably going to go unread, but those are my thoughts on the matter.
Really?!? You didn't EVER break a siege with a single colonist?
Give him a M24 and make him take pot shots at the mortars (or anyone so dumb to not take cover) And when they are gone, along a lot of siegers, they will attack.
Quote from: Wex on October 20, 2014, 01:17:32 PM
Really?!? You didn't EVER break a siege with a single colonist?
Give him a M24 and make him take pot shots at the mortars (or anyone so dumb to not take cover) And when they are gone, along a lot of siegers, they will attack.
That is an exploit more than anything and believe it or not, not everyone sees 50 guys in power armor putting up sandbags and immediately thinks of a frontal assault. Instead the natural reaction for me (and I think for a lot of players) is to put up my own mortars and soften them up from afar because not everyone expects the AI to be so blatantly exploitable. And I think that illustrates the big problem, whether you can fight off raiders yourself or not a lot of people see the constant Zerg rushes and their natural reaction is to go for maximum defenses, i.e. mountain bunkers and killboxes. I've been doing a couple outdoor colonies now trying to restrain myself from using killboxes and while it is definitely manageable it does not seem like a very viable strategy when you come into the game as a first time player and once you've acquired the tower defense mentality it'll dominate your playstyle so what I think is needed is for the game to give a message to players that its okay to try and fight raiders head-on and that they don't need to put down giant doom fortresses to survive (for that to happen this actually has to be true first of course).
It might be worth considering making the first sieges very early so they occur before any defenses can be put up or raiders get too numerous. If its 4-5 colonists against 4-5 raiders with pistols I think a lot more people would feel inclined to take the offensive approach on their first siege, setting them onto the path of active combat rather than tower defense.
Another "problem", addressed earlier in the thread, is that replacing colonists lost to anything is a comparatively difficult task so most people become extremely risk averse. Because, for the most part you are riding the knife edge and losing a key person can be devastating. If replacements were more assured, it might make players more open to risky ventures.
I really enjoy building into the mountain. I like the feeling of safety, even if it makes many things a lot more challenging; fertilizer pumps / hydroponics, relying on geothermal energy and trying to minimize energy expenditure, huge walk distances when I want to hunt / gather stuff from crashed pods or dead raiders, etc. So it makes ONE thing (defending against raiders) easier while making everything else harder. That seems like a fair trade in my book.
Anyway, here are some of my thoughts on the issue:
1- The raiders dropping right on top of you event is extremely annoying, and this alone is the reason I moved from a half-outside, half-underground base to a completely-underground base. I think this needs to be removed altogether.
2- The mortars and alien ship events are great. I really enjoy taking the offensive with a spec-ops team, taking out key targets and forcing them to attack my base. More of this would be nice.
3- Perhaps adding an air quality mechanic could add an interesting challenge to underground bases? You would have to build ventilation shafts, air conditioners, etc, and have multiple exits from your base to have good air circulation. Diseased people could infect others if there isn't adequate air conditioning, and you could also encounter poisonous gas pockets in the mountain which could force you to seal off the area or abandon your base until it gets cleaned up by your air conditioners. Other things like corpses, forges, fireplaces, etc could also reduce air quality, as would the number of colonists living inside of course.
Quote from: obuw on October 20, 2014, 07:16:25 PM
1- The raiders dropping right on top of you event is extremely annoying, and this alone is the reason I moved from a half-outside, half-underground base to a completely-underground base. I think this needs to be removed altogether.
A bit of self promotion, but I think it is relevant:
The recent version of my mod, Enhanced-Defence, has a shield that can intercept Droppods
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6636.0
Quote
While Shields can not stop DropPods as they to weapon, because of their increased Mass, they can make certain that they cant stop it. It can overload the Avionics system, causing the decent rockets not to fire so that the DropPod slams into the ground at terminal Velocity.
Practically this means that instead of drooping off people they will now hit the ground with a bang.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 19, 2014, 07:19:00 AM
I think you mean "plethora" of options, not "dearth." But yeah.
Ugh. That's what happens when you post late at night.
Also, I do want to point out that I build numerous DF type colonies and when the inevitable raid hits, those mortars of theirs destroys rooms and stuff in my colony, in the mountain. I don't check the roof type so it could be a difference between thin versus thick here, but mortars being setup isn't automatically negated by building into a mountain.
Quote from: Jaxxa on October 20, 2014, 07:23:32 PM
Quote from: obuw on October 20, 2014, 07:16:25 PM
1- The raiders dropping right on top of you event is extremely annoying, and this alone is the reason I moved from a half-outside, half-underground base to a completely-underground base. I think this needs to be removed altogether.
A bit of self promotion, but I think it is relevant:
The recent version of my mod, Enhanced-Defence, has a shield that can intercept Droppods
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6636.0
Quote
While Shields can not stop DropPods as they to weapon, because of their increased Mass, they can make certain that they cant stop it. It can overload the Avionics system, causing the decent rockets not to fire so that the DropPod slams into the ground at terminal Velocity.
Practically this means that instead of drooping off people they will now hit the ground with a bang.
No offense, but...
Trading "Raiders drop in the middle of your base, kek" for "Raiders kamikaze into the middle of your base explosively" doesn't seem like it's a
very good deal, I'll be perfectly honest. It's like bargaining the mob who've come to break both of your legs and kick your teeth in for late payments of debts down to breaking one of your legs and kicking you in the crotch until you can't feel your johnson anymore.
It's better than getting both legs broken and all your teeth knocked out, but it still ain't exactly great.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 21, 2014, 04:53:05 AM
No offense, but...
Trading "Raiders drop in the middle of your base, kek" for "Raiders kamikaze into the middle of your base explosively" doesn't seem like it's a very good deal, I'll be perfectly honest. It's like bargaining the mob who've come to break both of your legs and kick your teeth in for late payments of debts down to breaking one of your legs and kicking you in the crotch until you can't feel your johnson anymore.
It's better than getting both legs broken and all your teeth knocked out, but it still ain't exactly great.
I don't find it too bad. It is the same as incendiary mortars, so it only starts a fire and one of the other shields have a fire suppression mods, you can use. But feel free to play test and give balance suggestions on the thread, I may remove it if people don't like it.
Quote from: obuw on October 20, 2014, 07:16:25 PM
1- The raiders dropping right on top of you event is extremely annoying, and this alone is the reason I moved from a half-outside, half-underground base to a completely-underground base. I think this needs to be removed altogether.
Annoying in what way? If it is due to having enemies bypass your killbox or w/e an easy solution is to have defenses inside your base.
If this event occurs in my outdoor colonies, there'll be maybe a few turrets in range, very little decent cover for the people dropping in AND seeing as it's rather centralised I can draft my colonists and make them shoot from doorways/alleyways.
In general I find the event pretty easy, although the raiders do still have a chance to mess up my base and hurt my colonists which is good. It isn't some insurmountable problem, but a challenge that can be overcome and have fun knock on effects.
Multiple, simoultaneus, devastating drop pods assaults.
We shall call this manuver STEEL RAIN!
I have an idea that I've been kicking around for a while and I think it is applicable to this issue. Food is great and all, but what about water? I was thinking of adding water pumps that would need to be built with at least a little bit of metal (though you could build wood or stone based ones) and have to be built next to water. I'm not sure about pipes or anything like that, but the pump would need to be powered electrically and would fill sinks, or fountains with gallons of water that your colonists would need to drink. They would require far less but would need it far more often and would die much faster from not having it. You could have a bill added to a fountain to create bottled water which could be stored and carried as gear and bottled water would sell for very cheap ($.50) and water tanks that would store excess gallons from the pump(s). This means that your colony would be required to have and protect water pumps outside of the mountain or you would have to buy a lot of water all the time or both. Even better, an extra bill could be added to utilize berries or other foods to make flavored drinks. These would make the colonists thirsty faster, but would grant a mood boost.
I have no idea if it's possible but a oxygen system meaning further into the mountain you get it's more difficult to breath, Air vents would fix this but not be around early on, just a thought.
Quote from: Redclaw on October 22, 2014, 12:33:29 AM
I have no idea if it's possible but a oxygen system meaning further into the mountain you get it's more difficult to breath, Air vents would fix this but not be around early on, just a thought.
I like it much better than the water idea. Drinking water would add another action colonists would have to take (plus bring water to prisoners and patients) which would add more micro and exacerbate problems with exploring big maps.
A ventillation system on the other hand - would be semi-automated (you would have to set it up but it would be a passive modifier.) I think it could be easily tied to the health system. If you don't get enough oxygen, your immunity is going to suffer. Or we could have asphyxiation as a separate condition. Building air vents would add some additional cost to mountain colonies (material- and power-wise) without being too annoying. (Which would even out the costs of mountain colonies and outdoor colonies.)
Also, if vents were a researchable item, it would delay dwarfing and add some challenge to the early game.
What do you guys think?
BTW. I usually don't use mods, but if somebody was to make a mod with air vents, I think it might be the first mod I would actually use for longer than one game.
Quote from: stefanstr on October 22, 2014, 04:28:50 AM
Quote from: Redclaw on October 22, 2014, 12:33:29 AM
I have no idea if it's possible but a oxygen system meaning further into the mountain you get it's more difficult to breath, Air vents would fix this but not be around early on, just a thought.
I like it much better than the water idea. Drinking water would add another action colonists would have to take (plus bring water to prisoners and patients) which would add more micro and exacerbate problems with exploring big maps.
A ventillation system on the other hand - would be semi-automated (you would have to set it up but it would be a passive modifier.) I think it could be easily tied to the health system. If you don't get enough oxygen, your immunity is going to suffer. Or we could have asphyxiation as a separate condition. Building air vents would add some additional cost to mountain colonies (material- and power-wise) without being too annoying. (Which would even out the costs of mountain colonies and outdoor colonies.)
Also, if vents were a researchable item, it would delay dwarfing and add some challenge to the early game.
What do you guys think?
BTW. I usually don't use mods, but if somebody was to make a mod with air vents, I think it might be the first mod I would actually use for longer than one game.
Tbh I'm not a fan of oxygen ideas myself. Perhaps certain risks revolving around atmosphere y
eah, but other than that I don't like it simply for the idea that mining would take a lot longer to complete in a mountain.
Well, I think that mining *should* take longer than it currently does. It is bordering on absurd that you can mine a chamber in about the same time that you would need to build a wooden shack of the same size.
I understand where people are coming from with the mining but I really don't think changing mining speed would prevent players from just turning on mining on all their colonists to expedite the work and still tunnel in the mountain.
The higher combat lethality and the harder it is to replace colonists, the more people will value safety above all. As far as combat is concerned I think the big range weapons are the primary culprit: it's just borderline stupid to even try and get close for "interesting tactics" in an overwhelming amount of combat situations just because you have m24s taking potshots at whatever you're doing from a mile away. And then there needs to be new ways to recruit colonists, migrants that want to join you, visitors you can talk into joining through negotiation or if you impress them enough, more slave ships, open to ideas here.
Once more weapons and tactics are open that can "deal with" range (or range is nerfed), and once we can replace colonists a little easier than now (99% tribals, lol), people will be less focused on impenetrable defense and killboxes.
Quote from: Jaxxa on October 20, 2014, 07:23:32 PM
Quote from: obuw on October 20, 2014, 07:16:25 PM
1- The raiders dropping right on top of you event is extremely annoying, and this alone is the reason I moved from a half-outside, half-underground base to a completely-underground base. I think this needs to be removed altogether.
A bit of self promotion, but I think it is relevant:
The recent version of my mod, Enhanced-Defence, has a shield that can intercept Droppods
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=6636.0
Quote
While Shields can not stop DropPods as they to weapon, because of their increased Mass, they can make certain that they cant stop it. It can overload the Avionics system, causing the decent rockets not to fire so that the DropPod slams into the ground at terminal Velocity.
Practically this means that instead of drooping off people they will now hit the ground with a bang.
Actually I'm playing TTM, which I think includes a version of your mod. Nice work indeed. =)
In the end I just constructed a roof over my entire outdoor area. I add a no-roof zone around my orbital beacon when I want to sell stuff, and remove it when I'm done selling. Problem solved, no more raiders armies dropping right in the middle of my base all the time.
Lets not nerf more, lets encourage more :).
Actually I just started a creative building thread if anyone feels like joining in the fun.
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=7061.0 (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=7061.0)
Hope you don't mind me posting this here.
Quote from: TinnedEpic on October 22, 2014, 06:53:25 AM
Quote from: stefanstr on October 22, 2014, 04:28:50 AM
Quote from: Redclaw on October 22, 2014, 12:33:29 AM
I have no idea if it's possible but a oxygen system meaning further into the mountain you get it's more difficult to breath, Air vents would fix this but not be around early on, just a thought.
I like it much better than the water idea. Drinking water would add another action colonists would have to take (plus bring water to prisoners and patients) which would add more micro and exacerbate problems with exploring big maps.
A ventillation system on the other hand - would be semi-automated (you would have to set it up but it would be a passive modifier.) I think it could be easily tied to the health system. If you don't get enough oxygen, your immunity is going to suffer. Or we could have asphyxiation as a separate condition. Building air vents would add some additional cost to mountain colonies (material- and power-wise) without being too annoying. (Which would even out the costs of mountain colonies and outdoor colonies.)
Also, if vents were a researchable item, it would delay dwarfing and add some challenge to the early game.
What do you guys think?
BTW. I usually don't use mods, but if somebody was to make a mod with air vents, I think it might be the first mod I would actually use for longer than one game.
Tbh I'm not a fan of oxygen ideas myself. Perhaps certain risks revolving around atmosphere y
eah, but other than that I don't like it simply for the idea that mining would take a lot longer to complete in a mountain.
I'll just point out that Tynan has previously stated that Oxygen is something that will not be returning.
Just thought of something that could affect people's desire to build mountain bases: a claustrophobia trait.
This would be useful as the debuff could take affect not only in completely enclosed mountain bases, but also in small rooms and buildings, and perhaps in other locations too?
Just thought I'd throw this idea in here. :)
Thanks,
Zeph
Quote from: ZephyrSly on October 23, 2014, 07:21:54 PM
Just thought of something that could affect people's desire to build mountain bases: a claustrophobia trait.
This would be useful as the debuff could take affect not only in completely enclosed mountain bases, but also in small rooms and buildings, and perhaps in other locations too?
Just thought I'd throw this idea in here. :)
Thanks,
Zeph
I think it's possible, it has a gameplay element. Though if you do that you'll also have to consider adding Agoraphobia as the opposite trait, for fair play.
Not that I particularly enjoy repeating myself but penalties for tunneling in aren't going to stop people from playing hyper conservatively, because the causes for that phenomenon are much stronger drives than any relatively soft penalty you'd impose on mountain bases.
In order to force people out as it stands, you'd have to make mountain tunneling so punishing that it would be borderline nonviable and detract from player choice overall. The real problem lies in exacerbated combat lethality, weapon range trumping almost everything, and lack of options to replace colonists. That's what needs to be addressed one way or another. If you want to keep high lethality and tension during combat, which can be a very good thing, then you need to provide extra ways to recruit/replace colonists. The rare slave ships and incapacitated raiders aren't enough for most players to want to risk their colonists in an "open" fight.
I have to agree with you Noobshock, Tynan would probably have to make tunnel bases non-viable to change the way people would play - however I think that'd be the polar opposite of what the game is about.
One of my favourite experiances in Rimworld is overcoming a problem in my own way with no limitations - if I was forced to make a decision or move in Rimworld, I'd feel limited and boxed in.
Also, if colonists were easier to acquire and more likley to die, I'd stop giving them backstories and viewing them as actual characters - they'd just become little pawns I'd send out to die, to be replaced quickly by a slave trader. I think that'd ruin the feel of the game, where every colonist matters.
Quote from: Noobshock on October 24, 2014, 11:44:53 AM
Not that I particularly enjoy repeating myself but penalties for tunneling in aren't going to stop people from playing hyper conservatively, because the causes for that phenomenon are much stronger drives than any relatively soft penalty you'd impose on mountain bases.
In order to force people out as it stands, you'd have to make mountain tunneling so punishing that it would be borderline nonviable and detract from player choice overall. The real problem lies in exacerbated combat lethality, weapon range trumping almost everything, and lack of options to replace colonists. That's what needs to be addressed one way or another. If you want to keep high lethality and tension during combat, which can be a very good thing, then you need to provide extra ways to recruit/replace colonists. The rare slave ships and incapacitated raiders aren't enough for most players to want to risk their colonists in an "open" fight.
This is why I liked the idea of being able to build robots that would do manual labor for your colony. They could do just about anything mindless. But social, hunting, and defending the base would be barred from them. They'd also be pretty expensive or have various levels of them (EG a metal-only-costing one that can only perform one task selected when created, a plasteel, metal, and AI core costing one that would do all of the mindless tasks - through priority table - but still couldn't fight, and then a much more expensive one that could fight as well but still couldn't do social). It would also be nice to have a stealth mechanic with perception as a new skill. Then we could build cameras to spot raiders sneaking into the base to steal stuff and have some of the colonists on guard duty. Better yet, said robots could have to charge in sunlight periodically to keep going and if they ran out would have to be hauled into the sun to recharge.
Quote from: ZephyrSly on October 24, 2014, 01:36:52 PM
Also, if colonists were easier to acquire and more likley to die, I'd stop giving them backstories and viewing them as actual characters - they'd just become little pawns I'd send out to die, to be replaced quickly by a slave trader. I think that'd ruin the feel of the game, where every colonist matters.
I think there's probably a more reasonable compromise between them being "easily replaceable" and what we have now. What we have now is scarcity on such a level that it drives people to use killboxes. We just need more options for recruitment, they don't have to be cheap or easy, and it doesn't have to make recruiting feel trivial. It just needs to be a little more open than the slave ship showing up once in a blue moon and the seemingly endless flow of incapacitated 99% tribals whose recruitment is a nightmare.
Quote from: SimpleLogician on October 24, 2014, 02:56:52 PM
It would also be nice to have a stealth mechanic with perception as a new skill. Then we could build cameras to spot raiders sneaking into the base to steal stuff and have some of the colonists on guard duty.
I love this idea! Also, you could abduct sleeping siegers with a stealth approach! :)
Really an excellent idea! Stealth/perception would be a much more useful skill than what art is going to be (I think).
Mountains have many advantages from thick roofs that prevent enemies coming in in drop pods to been cheap constructions. My idea is to have a special enemy a giant worm that has a chance of leaving rocks or ore behind it [fills in tunnels effort to maintain them] . Basically being a tunneling mechanoid you would have to research ultrasonic sensors to detect it. Also how about resurrection tables if a body is in a suitable condition it needs all the important organs. Using blood extracted from colonists and 10000 electricity you could resurrect corpses that recently died resurrection would leave them immobilized for 2 days and make their skills all drop by 1-4 depending on medical skill. This would be fair as 1 they must bleed to death not die from bad injuries. 2 you are making colonists weaker as they lose blood. 3 corpses must be fresh you could only resurrect 1 person per resuscitation table every wave as patching his wounds and filling him or her with blood would take to long for more than one person to be resurrected.
Quote from: stefanstr on October 24, 2014, 05:04:25 PM
Really an excellent idea! Stealth/perception would be a much more useful skill than what art is going to be (I think).
If you thought people were turtling now, imagine how it'll be with an enemy you cannot see, checkpoints every 20 metres and an obscene amount of cameras around every corner.
Quote from: Coenmcj on October 26, 2014, 09:48:33 PM
If you thought people were turtling now, imagine how it'll be with an enemy you cannot see, checkpoints every 20 metres and an obscene amount of cameras around every corner.
A valid point. The more this discussion is going on the more I am inclined to think that the right approach is to simply balance out costs of an outdoor base vs an indoor base without any new mechanics to discourage people from turtling. (In reality, drilling into a mountain would require a lot of time and materials, whereas in Rimworld, it is actually cheaper than an outdoor base.)
BTW. I have just noticed this thread is the longest discussion this forum has ever seen apart from two or three pinned topics. Apart from feeding my ego as the OP, this is showing that how pivotal this problem is for Rimworld's design, and that it requires some more attention from Tynan.
Quote from: Coenmcj on October 26, 2014, 09:48:33 PM
Quote from: stefanstr on October 24, 2014, 05:04:25 PM
Really an excellent idea! Stealth/perception would be a much more useful skill than what art is going to be (I think).
If you thought people were turtling now, imagine how it'll be with an enemy you cannot see, checkpoints every 20 metres and an obscene amount of cameras around every corner.
Honestly I don't see much of a difference. Outside colonies generally have walls, and indoor colonies are going to have the same problem of raiders sneaking in.
That's what guards/detectors are for.
about perception/stealth:
Might as well implement/re implement fog of war and drastically change how combat is dealt with from [waves] to [constant, dynamic, variable threats]
IMO Paranoia and vigilance are/should be part of the survival genre, that's why people kept and keep guard shifts. If its important to guard a modern city at night, imagine a vulnerable camp in a raider ridden (and hopefully, someday, beast-ridden) world?
Although the question would remain, how this in particular would help this thread issue i don't know
It wouldn't. If anything, it would make it worse, encouraging people to wall off only those outdoor bits they absolutely need and turn the rest into a barren hellscape.
The changelog mentions a new temperature mechanic. I think it might add an interesting variation to mountain colonies. Caves maintain a constant low temperature throughout the year (about 10C or 50F unless the cave is in a hot climate) which would make them better than outside colonies in winter, but worse in the summer (so you would have to heat them in the summer).
(Yes, I have basically posted the same thing in the changelog thread but I think it applies here, as well.)
How about pre-generated mine shafts long ago abandoned that would lead off the edge of the world and raiders could use these to get into a mountain base? Or some other kind of constant threat within the mountain that wouldn't be too bad but something to watch for. I know it's been said before, but I really like the idea of abandoned mineshafts, they could even have useful stuff in them. Or there could be prebuilt mountain bases in the mountain already that if you opened one up the people living there would leap out and attack you.
As far as 'stop mountain turtling' goes, having to locate and barricade/guard "abandoned" mineshafts sounds like a good one, especially if raiders coming through them could mine to get to you, depending on location you might not even know there was a shaft there ahead of time unless you were looking for it.
If they regularly spawned in hidden locations then making a few exploratory tunnels to safeguard your base would become particularly valuable, but take a lot of time away from your miners.
The 'stale air' morale debuff sounds pretty good as well, coming from somebody who has gone wandering in caves before, it wouldn't be a huge thing but you have to really pamper some colonists or they go on a rampage the moment they catch the plague from a pile of rotting corpses while carrying a boulder several miles at night (My colonists never have a good day during the first couple months, does that make me a terrible boss?)
There have been a fair number of potentially good suggestions so far, but many I'm iffy about (depending on how they were implemented, mostly).
I'm generally against making things that are guaranteed losses, mitigating or preventing things should be possible but also waste time and resources (Or require knowledge of the game based on a previous defeat, I'm from Dwarf Fortress after all and it takes losing a few hundred dwarves to get to a relatively competent level).
Well for one, plasteal being required for the ship construction makes it VERY expensive. I have tried to build outside and try to rush the ship and it takes FOREVER! This makes it so you have to play for the late game.
Also on an unrelated note, the whole concept of being stranded on a rim-world is very far fetched. If you have traders who can find you to make trades couldn't they just send for help? or couldn't you just pay to hitch a ride?
You have to look at your demographic for the game. People who play this genre love to build a base and sit tight expand and grow. When I play, even if I could launch my ship I chose not to. I spent all this time building this base now I want to see how long it can hold out.
Perhaps T should consider implementing different game modes? For example there could be modes like:
escape-early game focused, get out asap. Maybe even link the game to a leader board. This way you have a reason to escape ASAP.
survival-late game focused. Also could be linked to a leader-board with net worth, time survived, # of colonists etc...
To make the late game more interesting, we need more research objectives. As it sits without mods, you run out of research within the first year. So from then on there is no progression. Some research ideas could be:
Positivity beacon: your colonists have a constant happiness buff maybe like +5 or +10
after you are attacked by the first crashed ship that emits the psychic drone you can research the beacon.
Nano-bots: heal speed increased by x%
Neuro-Trainer production: Be able to create neuro-trainer devises. They could be expensive maybe even require plasteal.
Organ Farming: Be able to create organs and limbs. IRL we are already very close to making this a reality so why not in this universe were space travel is a ting.
These are just some vague ideas, I'm just trying to make a game I love even better.
Yeah i constantly speak of game modes and game purposes, perhaps i'll start a thread on it, since commenting into already made topics gets swallowed up and never read, and people seem to think of that from time to time.
Quote from: KugelBlitz on October 31, 2014, 01:29:16 PM
Well for one, plasteal being required for the ship construction makes it VERY expensive. I have tried to build outside and try to rush the ship and it takes FOREVER! This makes it so you have to play for the late game.
Also on an unrelated note, the whole concept of being stranded on a rim-world is very far fetched. If you have traders who can find you to make trades couldn't they just send for help? or couldn't you just pay to hitch a ride?
You have to look at your demographic for the game. People who play this genre love to build a base and sit tight expand and grow. When I play, even if I could launch my ship I chose not to. I spent all this time building this base now I want to see how long it can hold out.
Perhaps T should consider implementing different game modes? For example there could be modes like:
escape-early game focused, get out asap. Maybe even link the game to a leader board. This way you have a reason to escape ASAP.
survival-late game focused. Also could be linked to a leader-board with net worth, time survived, # of colonists etc...
To make the late game more interesting, we need more research objectives. As it sits without mods, you run out of research within the first year. So from then on there is no progression. Some research ideas could be:
Positivity beacon: your colonists have a constant happiness buff maybe like +5 or +10
after you are attacked by the first crashed ship that emits the psychic drone you can research the beacon.
Nano-bots: heal speed increased by x%
Neuro-Trainer production: Be able to create neuro-trainer devises. They could be expensive maybe even require plasteal.
Organ Farming: Be able to create organs and limbs. IRL we are already very close to making this a reality so why not in this universe were space travel is a ting.
These are just some vague ideas, I'm just trying to make a game I love even better.
The rimworlds are far isolated planets. The presumption is that the colonists are people that need to travel farther than just 'the next world over'. Travel that takes years and alot of cryosleep, not just a few hours and a skip to the next backwater planet.
Quote from: Mathenaut on November 01, 2014, 10:33:21 AM
The rimworlds are far isolated planets. The presumption is that the colonists are people that need to travel farther than just 'the next world over'. Travel that takes years and alot of cryosleep, not just a few hours and a skip to the next backwater planet.
There are an awful lot of traders showing up if it takes years to get to, I always assumed the ship we can make is crappy and sublight, but rich folk from glitterworlds can get decent FTL.
If we wanted to start a trading colony we'd have to become space pirates and steal somebody else's ship, or otherwise obtain an FTL drive (Which, being on a ship powered by antimatter, probably wouldn't be intact if it crashed).
I imagine they would be
ludeonicrously expensive and impossible to build without dedicated factories and tons of resources, manpower, and expertise.
Quote from: Weyrling on November 01, 2014, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Mathenaut on November 01, 2014, 10:33:21 AM
The rimworlds are far isolated planets. The presumption is that the colonists are people that need to travel farther than just 'the next world over'. Travel that takes years and alot of cryosleep, not just a few hours and a skip to the next backwater planet.
There are an awful lot of traders showing up if it takes years to get to, I always assumed the ship we can make is crappy and sublight, but rich folk from glitterworlds can get decent FTL.
If we wanted to start a trading colony we'd have to become space pirates and steal somebody else's ship, or otherwise obtain an FTL drive (Which, being on a ship powered by antimatter, probably wouldn't be intact if it crashed).
I imagine they would be ludeonicrously expensive and impossible to build without dedicated factories and tons of resources, manpower, and expertise.
As far as I know it Rimworld lore FTL is not possible.
Holy cow! Grab an AI and repourpose it for giving a psychic boost! Why hasn't anyone tought about this?!?
Quote from: vagineer1 on November 01, 2014, 11:14:59 AM
As far as I know it Rimworld lore FTL is not possible.
Then I guess people are grabbing a bunch of supplies and flying away from the "core" worlds as fast as physically possible, considering how many traders show up on a regular basis to a supposed rim world.
What does being a rimworld mean, exactly?
I should probably learn more about the lore, but considering the constant stream of trade ships I'm not really sure what the world is supposed to be on the rim of. Just how many thousands of trade ships are there, if a rimworld can get traders several times a month?
Quote from: Weyrling on November 01, 2014, 06:25:56 PM
Quote from: vagineer1 on November 01, 2014, 11:14:59 AM
As far as I know it Rimworld lore FTL is not possible.
Then I guess people are grabbing a bunch of supplies and flying away from the "core" worlds as fast as physically possible, considering how many traders show up on a regular basis to a supposed rim world.
What does being a rimworld mean, exactly?
I should probably learn more about the lore, but considering the constant stream of trade ships I'm not really sure what the world is supposed to be on the rim of. Just how many thousands of trade ships are there, if a rimworld can get traders several times a month?
If I remember correctly these are supposed to be traders that either orbit the planet or cruise the solar system. But I gotta admit, it does seem a little bit incongruent with the lore. Then again, potato harvest is every few days, so...
Perhaps there could be something like eye damage forming, frail bones and such from living underground too long?
I'll admit I didn't read through this whole thread, so I apologize if this was mentioned already.
Why not make it that power conduits cannot be placed on the floor? Then if you built inside a mountain you'd still have to build walls to run your power everywhere. There may be other issues with that, but it was just something that came to mind.
Quote from: MisterVertigo on March 30, 2015, 04:35:28 PM
I'll admit I didn't read through this whole thread, so I apologize if this was mentioned already.
Why not make it that power conduits cannot be placed on the floor? Then if you built inside a mountain you'd still have to build walls to run your power everywhere. There may be other issues with that, but it was just something that came to mind.
Actually the recent changes to temperature distribution have added some difficulty to the underground bases. A fire underground can be absolutely deadly unless you have dug out some vents.
Your idea is not bad, though. And it hasn't been suggested in this thread before, so no worries.
Has hostile creature spawning underground been mentioned yet?
bears that seek out caves in the winter?
Earthquakes that collapse un-constructed roofs? Maybe make the first constructed roof collapse in teh first earthquake after which no constructed roofs collapse anymore.
To some extent or another, yes.
For supports and roofs i'd say you should have to construct walls in to make proper roofs to avoid cave ins and "cave" roof beauty penalty. Perhaps evento a smooth wall.
That way you still have the benefits of underground but with more proper investment.
I think living in a mountain is a perfectly reasonable idea. its already mostly balanced for the fact that you need so many hydroponic basins. and it s almost impossible to get a good base going in colder climates and those are my favorites. all this stuff you guys keep on mentioning would just want me to play less and less. additionally its a single player game. why would you guys care that much if you have your own choice. and for my 60+ colonist bases good luck not going mountain side in a colder climate. point is if you make mountain basing worse it'll give another reason to stop playing besides the obvious lack of a proper start to end game tech tree and progression and the fact that i feel like im playing in a medieval based game and not a futuristic game. also for besieges i just hide in my base for 2 years. and i go back to last auto save if theirs a crashed ship part because 90 percent of my people go insane in the first couple days.
Putting mood for staying inside is a cheap way to have players decide if they want to have base outside of caves or not. But it's not fun. How about raiders adapt to your base defense? Do you have a cave with an outside power source? Mortar the power out. Go to the main door and smoke the colonists inside their own base. Or they can set fire to that nice looking carpet you have all over the place and seal the door to have you burn alive. Raiders should have key targets: Power source, unprotected wall and backdoors. Lone colonist left behind... Why not have raiders cut power lines? This would make things alot more startegic. Having your base outside, prevent to expose some weakness. You can wall your power supply inside your main base and protect the power lines. You can even have a no roof section to avoid being smoke to death or burned alive.
In my opinion, a good game is one that offers more than one way to play the game and still succeed. However, each play style should offer its own unique challenge; as to not take away the fun aspect. Being out in the open means you can be attacked from several different angles, and you are more susceptible to a lot of the dangers (raids, sieges, lighting strikes, etc.). I honestly don't think this way of playing needs any more challenges for now :p
Anyways, people should be allowed to hide in the mountains if they want. But, this strategy should have some sort of unique challenge (other than feeling grumpy all the time, because blah environment). We don't need complex AI to make the game fun. Sure, it certainly helps, but the game is still in development and that stuff can come later. A lot of people have suggested earthquakes/cave ins. I think that's a terrific start.
Currently, the investment both in time and resources to build underground are far less than for building outside, actually, you only need to spend time to build underground. Sure i understand going underground for protection, and it should offer better protection than outside, but if you are building The Norad, its expected a little bit more of investment than say, a wood Villa.
Perhaps a challenge for mountain bases could be asbestos veins, if mined into the lungs of the colonists would be ravaged and require replacement. Depending on timing the effect could range from annoying to utterly debilitating.
-Argon
We need slower mining times but faster woodchopping and/or a woodchopping skill.
I also think that adding fog of war along with different watchtowers, more variations on turrets, traps, pillboxes and more defensive structures in general. Watchtowers would need to be manned and enhance a character's sight range/skill. Now that characters have timetables having people on guard shifts would make sense.
Quote from: anotherrimworld on March 31, 2015, 11:52:21 PM
We need slower mining times but faster woodchopping and/or a woodchopping skill.
I also think that adding fog of war along with different watchtowers, more variations on turrets, traps, pillboxes and more defensive structures in general. Watchtowers would need to be manned and enhance a character's sight range/skill. Now that characters have timetables having people on guard shifts would make sense.
From what I gather, Tynan isn't a huge fan of the idea of fog of war :( It makes sense as to why, but it's still disappointing...
I don't really think tree cutting needs to be shortened, as it seems to be fairly decent as it is. However, mining speed is way way way WAY too fast at the moment. The fact that I can mine a huge room for my colonists to sleep in by the end of the first night tells me that mining is way too easy right now...
Quote from: CB elite on March 31, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
Quote from: anotherrimworld on March 31, 2015, 11:52:21 PM
We need slower mining times but faster woodchopping and/or a woodchopping skill.
I also think that adding fog of war along with different watchtowers, more variations on turrets, traps, pillboxes and more defensive structures in general. Watchtowers would need to be manned and enhance a character's sight range/skill. Now that characters have timetables having people on guard shifts would make sense.
From what I gather, Tynan isn't a huge fan of the idea of fog of war :( It makes sense as to why, but it's still disappointing...
I don't really think tree cutting needs to be shortened, as it seems to be fairly decent as it is. However, mining speed is way way way WAY too fast at the moment. The fact that I can mine a huge room for my colonists to sleep in by the end of the first night tells me that mining is way too easy right now...
OFf-topic, FoW should just be toggleable for those who want it and for those who don't.
Quote from: apljee on April 01, 2015, 12:04:23 AM
OFf-topic, FoW should just be toggleable for those who want it and for those who don't.
Agreed. And I imagine there is/will be a mod for it, but it would be nice to be part of the main game. Raids would be a lot scarier ._.
I don't remember Tynan stating he's not a fan of FoW, specially since the first versions of rimworld had it. I remember him saying that he took it out to avoid some non-specified confusion. Could someone provide a quote?
The problem with a toggle-able FoW is that having it would require a number of balancing done and perhaps even some new systems like line of sight and better AI pathing.
But I guess a toggle would be better than nothing tho'
Just to be clear where i stand: i'd love to see FoW (re)implemented, but the community is currently cooling off on that subject, for a while. It does pop up again every now and then.
I'll be honest and say that it was a secondary source of information that I used :/
Shame on me :-[
Quote from: quxzcover on March 31, 2015, 10:55:57 AM
point is if you make mountain basing worse it'll give another reason to stop playing besides the obvious lack of a proper start to end game tech tree and progression and the fact that i feel like im playing in a medieval based game and not a futuristic game. also for besieges i just hide in my base for 2 years. and i go back to last auto save if theirs a crashed ship part because 90 percent of my people go insane in the first couple days.
You should try building outside for a change. The same tactic that you use to deal with crashed ship part would work just fine against sieges, lightning, forest fires and insane animals. Just reload whenever the game gives you something challenging and you will be fine.
I dont need FoW but it would let us use bigger maps with less lag. Though hunting would need to change into a bill at the butcher table or something. Since we couldnt just select everything on the map to go kill.
As for the point of the thread. I almost always build in a mountain. Ive tried not doing it and it works ok but now that drop assaults dont focus on the primary trade beacon like they used too I am back to dwarf mode. I very seldom ever had issues with cabin fever unless they were prisoners or brain damaged.
The reasons I stay inside in case its helpful to list.
Thick mountain roofs block everything. Drop pods and artillery.
One entrance is easier to defend. Killbox or not.
Small thin roof mountain areas can be exposed to create protected parks or filled with solid walls. Or used for thermal vents.
Natural mountain walls dont get attacked by the AI like player made stuff so they only ever focus on your main entrance.
Drawbacks?
Temperature can quickly build up. I make thermal halls that i dump my heat into. I expose them to unroofed areas if i can but it doesnt matter.
Power generation is tricky. I like modding the anti-matter reactor into something more realistic with power generation and making it build-able indoors but geothermal and solar fields are generally the only option otherwise.
Wood needs to be harvested but when there isnt an attack its easy and removes any cabin fever issues. Food is all internal.
Thats all I can think of off the top of my head. Mountain bases arnt a bad thing, but game balance is better served by looking at the pros and cons.
Quote from: CB elite on March 31, 2015, 09:37:45 PM
In my opinion, a good game is one that offers more than one way to play the game and still succeed. However, each play style should offer its own unique challenge; as to not take away the fun aspect. Being out in the open means you can be attacked from several different angles, and you are more susceptible to a lot of the dangers (raids, sieges, lighting strikes, etc.). I honestly don't think this way of playing needs any more challenges for now :p
Anyways, people should be allowed to hide in the mountains if they want. But, this strategy should have some sort of unique challenge (other than feeling grumpy all the time, because blah environment). We don't need complex AI to make the game fun. Sure, it certainly helps, but the game is still in development and that stuff can come later. A lot of people have suggested earthquakes/cave ins. I think that's a terrific start.
one door. that's all they can attack. geothermal power and hydroponics are all indoors for the most part and can last me forever. sieges I just leave there.
Maybe add an event where you need to leave your base to contest something. For example, a medship with valuable tech crashes, and immediately or shortly thereafter raiders show up and try to loot the ship and leave, ignoring the rest of your base. This would be both realistic and reward going on the offense.
There should be effect on someones mood if they don't get enough sun light, this would also mean that window would be a necessity.
Quote from: thewoodpecker on April 22, 2015, 06:29:33 AM
There should be effect on someones mood if they don't get enough sun light, this would also mean that window would be a necessity.
There already is, its called "Cabin Fever"
A few things. At least my observations on the situation. Don't flame me too much on this one.....
1.
Large bunkers, in real life can be spartan, yet very comfortable. Cabin fever can be really averted. (I wish so in the game, as I design mine based on real life larger bunkers.). How many people here play a -practical- game, versus a simulation? For example, I try to design bunkers based on the ones I am in, with dedicated areas and designs. A living module, a plant module, a production module, blast doors, containment, etc.
1.a. Some larger bunkers in real life can be sealed off almost indefinitely. I've been in some which were designed 50 years ago for 500 people to be completely sealed for 30-90 days. Food, fuel, and air was the largest problems. Not to mention, they normally had procedures in place to deal with people going crazy. (Rim-world actually does emulate this...I've also roleplayed it out when people do crack.)
I dislike the cabin fever de-buff, simply because there is no other option. A lot of what gets people is stress, routine and lack of things to do. Joy in A10 adds a great layer, as it deals with the psychological stresses of survival. If you give enough things for people to do, they will not think about where they are at. I'd like to see more joy activities within the game, and more items (I'm surprised people aren't adding more in for mods yet?)
There is also the issue of, a large bunker boxes you in. It really does. Which leads me into my next few points below.
2.
Patrols. Patrols would be fun. It would force people into the open. Snatch patrols, fighting patrols, recce patrols. All fun to do. The mechanic is somewhat there to do snatch squads on visitors and on wanderers. However it isn't enough, especially on tribal due to recruitment difficulty. It would be fun to be able to ambush raiders, ones who aren't running at my front door. It would be fun to ambush supply convoys, or grab prisoners. Hell, even some intelligence gathering would be fun. I try to roleplay taking prisoners (not for recruitment, or for anything, but to pretend I've tactically questioned them.....)
2.a - One option would be to look at indirect raider raids. Where they set up a snipers nest, or try to ambush your hunters / gatherers. Or again, have them park outside and set up a camp fire. Perhaps a "threat escalator", where a small group comes in and sets up an OP / LP, then more come, then more come, eventually a siege and an assault?
3.
Better use of ground and defensive positions.. Currently right now, the only good defense is to build a static position, and fighting the delay is very difficult. Setting up a proper section, or platoon attack is difficult. (Yes, I do simulate like that.) I'd love to be able to have my colonists do more than run out onto the ground and wait for the enemy. Shell scrapes, only take a few minutes to an hour to dig in real life, and that will give you some protection. A stage 2 trench (down to chest / head level) to a stage 3 (with a dug out for overhead protection) will take less than a day. [/center]
3.a. The biggest problem with a section or platoon attack is that when you place your colonists, and they are in range, they just open fire. So you can't set up a proper "firebase" for fire and maneuver.
3.b. There is also very few options other than walling up. Mutual supporting fire positions can work, and they play well into my early game, where I do actually try to set up a section defensive position. However, some tend to get overrun first. So it becomes difficult, especially with paths and targeting.
3.c. Fighting a withdrawal can be fun, however I find the game's combat interface rather limiting. Mutual support becomes difficult at best. Especially when "pepperpotting." (1 advances, 1 covers, or 1 withdraws, 1 covers.). The question becomes, why should I go out and fight them back to my main defensive line, in a delay action, or advance to contact, when I know they will walk into me, and not flank.
3.d. Lack of tactical options. Again, as I said before, some of the issues with the combat interface I find, make it difficult, if not impossible to simulate low level combat. Setting up a platoon minus, or a platoon sized fighting patrol can be very difficult at best. ROEs, don't fire until commands, groupings, etc will save a lot of this problem. Even orders of march to help keep colonist spacing? Why advance when I know they will walk straight in. I'd love to see raids become a bit more multifacted, where, again, a small band comes in, sets up an OP, then perhaps a small probe, then a mass assault, if that fails, they regroup, and call in re-enforcements and artillery / mortars / heavy weapons.
3.e Map size. Even on the largest size map, there is far too many choke points, and far too close ranges. I'd love to see the map size doubled. Simply because it adds a lot of space for everyone to maneuver.
4. Tactical Options. Right now, my only options are hold a main defensive line, or fight a very risky assault or delay. Now, I've raised the issues with the later above. Another issue is I can't keep colonists out for that long and expect to survive. I can't set up OPs / Shell scraps, or deal with all the issues of administration for long enough to actually setup for the 18-48 hours to actually do a proper, and simulated attack. Rather it's run up and do some sort of hasty attack, normally a up the center assault rather than a flanking attack. Also, if I do an attack, the issues are my colonist's don't group well together, and tend to screw it up too much, and it hurts. (Group moves of colonists are an issue. I'd love to be able to set formations up.) One problem for example, let's say I send out a textbook section. (2 LMG, 6 rifles (there's no really good Grenade launcher in the game yet.....), I do advance to contact, come under "effective" enemy fire. After that the system falls apart.
4.a - Morale : People don't get scared running into direct fire. Winning the firefight doesn't really happen in Rimworld. Putting down a pair of LMGs does not suppress the enemy allowing me maneuver. Enemies don't withdraw to cover. So why take them? Even if I was to attack with two balanced groups of four, it's difficult, if not impossible to have them advance, in a coherent fashion, in a fire and maneuver way. Rather they charge blindly in. This goes for both sides. People don't get nervous running into near certain death. I can't expect my colonists to use ground and cover to their advantage, or use things like zig-zag to avoid fire. Nor do they freeze up, or say, "nope, we're not charging in", or "I'm a piddling wreck who will be in the fetal position begging for mommy." The close combat series did this quite well really.
Again, my points are that open combat is very difficult to manage, and rather limiting. So from a pure cost benefit ratio, it's easier for me to hold up, in a place with one chokepoint, and wait for them to come to me. Logically that works, even in real warfare, the problem is, there's always ways around anything. (Maginot line anyone?). Not to mention, "control" of the map matters little.
How to make this better?
1. Make it valuable to patrol, make it valuable for me to send out snatch squads, or to send out people to fight openly.
2. Make control of the map important. I figure eventually, we will be allowed to trade around with factions, so what better way then to have trade convoys coming in and out, that you have to protect. Perhaps road building may be a thing to make them faster? Banditry and raiding in the truest sense would be fun, as you would have to either 1/ Pay for protection by the other party, or 2/ Send people out to protect a convoy.
3. Give us larger maps to play around with, let us experiment with something other than hold my main defensive position.
4. Expand the UI and behavior to allow me to tell people to move up, but not open fire until I give the order, or let me have formations.
5. Make raids more complex, longer, more drawn out. :). An idea is the one of multi stage raids as listed above, the other, I know it sounds like a club, is offmap artillery, being directed by a forward observer team, or a lone sniper sitting out at a distance taking pot shots at people. I know fog of war isn't in the game, however a sniper that roamed around, or an OP team that would set up, would make things fun.....
(Edit : Fat fingered, and posted before I was done.)
The killbox strategy has annoyed me and it certainly wouldn't work in real life as it does with the game. People don't (typically) attack people just to "kill 'em all". They scout to find the best route to accomplish a small goal. Like stealing food, resources, information or maybe capturing someone specific.
1. Raids should actually attempt to raid stockpiles, not just kill colonists. The best, safest (around turrets, avoiding blood stains) path to any valuable stockpile should be found. Second, the raiders should divide into two groups: the breach & steal group and the group providing cover. They leave when each of the first group has their hands full or they've taken too many casualties.
Personally, I'd rather just let them steal some junk than get into a fight to the death with only a few colonists. I may try to slow them down or capture one of them, but I'm not going to blockade them and take down every last one.
2. The risk of being in battle is too high. My colonists end up dead more frequently than injured. When injured, they lose limbs or damage their brain. A lot of real fire fights end up in nobody getting seriously hurt, they're just a distraction, a diversion for something bigger going down elsewhere.
I only play on Challenging. But after a rough fight with significant losses, the next encounter comes too quickly. Before I've healed up and always before I've recruited anyone worthy of fighting. You really need to not take any losses at each fight to grow fast enough to keep up. Colony life is supposed to be hard, full troubles, sure. But it feels like everyone is just out to kill me, which wouldn't benefit them if I pose no threat.
3. Calling everybody to arms each time there is an encounter doesn't feel believable. After a certain point, only my primary skilled soldiers should need to deal with an encounter. The rest of my colony just needs to stay away from the fight. Colonies of a certain size should have people on watch and guard duty throughout the day and night. I've liked the idea about building, stocking and manning outposts.
4. Sieges should have a pattern and be a little more epic and progressive. Scouting parties, sabotaging conduits on ground and walls, attacking power generators, explosive door and wall breaching. Some events paced out and some events involve multiple things going on at once to deal with.
5. Drop pods are awful, typically the only cause of me ever resorting to reloading my game. I'll typically lose most of my colonists before they can get into a defensive positions. I feel these are unbalanced and should be resolved for the result of heinous actions, like using human leather and meat, kidnapping visitors and the like. They should also have a goal and leave, to rescue someone, destroy something, steal some high quality art or equipment.
6. Automated defenses need to be a bigger variable. They should be armed with guns available on hand and react according to the gun's quality and accuracy. So they can become more reliable and useful as the colony advances. Short range shotgun turret, corridor cleaning minigun.
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
Adding some further mood penalties for being underground for long periods may be a viable option as well. You can live underground, it's true - but it's really awful to be underground all the time.
Looking at topic summaries also, I think we need different classes of mortars and different roof types to be supplemented with the type of walls you are supporting with, better walls, better roof or as roofs become hammered with mortars, they begin to damage walls before they crumble making a more viable option of building in the open... seems like the mountain is the go to choice for everyone.
I enjoy the ramp up of enemy hordes, feels like I am city building and playing tower defense in an essence.
I don't mind sending my colonists out to attack the ship or sieges but I think they needs to be more depth in the medical field, as my colonists become blown to pieces, I have better ability to patch them up in rudimentary ways or more advance ways in the future. Utilizing cryosleep caskets is a good start, essentially someone good have a critical failing organ and they could be put in one until my colony advances enough to remove him and heal him. Once a good hit is taken on a base and you lose most of your colonists, the game is pretty much over because the next wave is going to be just as big. If I can slowly restore my colonists, they adds a whole new depth to the game.
Quote from: Maragnus on April 24, 2015, 08:55:20 AM
5. Drop pods are awful, typically the only cause of me ever resorting to reloading my game. I'll typically lose most of my colonists before they can get into a defensive positions. I feel these are unbalanced and should be resolved for the result of heinous actions, like using human leather and meat, kidnapping visitors and the like. They should also have a goal and leave, to rescue someone, destroy something.
+1 for that.
Drop pods don't work in real life either. Well, the idea of jumping right onto the objective. It's just too dangerous for the assaulting force, until they can get organized. It's been tried, and not had great success. Even the most successful raids had a forming up point.
Quote from: Maragnus on April 24, 2015, 08:55:20 AM
The killbox strategy has annoyed me and it certainly wouldn't work in real life as it does with the game. People don't (typically) attack people just to "kill 'em all". They scout to find the best route to accomplish a small goal. Like stealing food, resources, information or maybe capturing someone specific.
Actually, Killboxes do work. Just not in such a simplistic fashion. Normally, when fighting the defense, you try to lure the enemy into a killing ground, or a choke point. Or you spring ambushes......Normally this is done by destroying / disabling / rendering impassible other lanes of advances towards objectives. This can take a lot of ways, anti-tank ditches, minefields, improvised obstacles, strong points and fortifications, terrain, etc. You want to deny the enemy room to maneuver, and fight on your terms. However, since the map doesn't handle multiple levels of terrain, it is hard to replicate this. Not to mention, over watch is very, very, very difficult in game. Too easy to simply kite the enemy back, or get hit by your own friendly fire.
Quote from: Maragnus on April 24, 2015, 08:55:20 AM
1. Raids should actually attempt to raid stockpiles, not just kill colonists. The best, safest (around turrets, avoiding blood stains) path to any valuable stockpile should be found. Second, the raiders should divide into two groups: the breach & steal group and the group providing cover. They leave when each of the first group has their hands full or they've taken too many casualties.
Personally, I'd rather just let them steal some junk than get into a fight to the death with only a few colonists. I may try to slow them down or capture one of them, but I'm not going to blockade them and take down every last one.
The big problem is, the AI doesn't have to follow the cost/benefit ratio that we have to. They theoretically have, unlimited resources. So they only logic I can see, is "Advance". If AI factions did have some sort of economics or population mechanism, which would be both simple, and difficult to insert, (a few variables, the coding would be hard to make more than simple.) it would make a lot more sense. Right now, AI factions have a population of infinite, rather than a population of n. So they can advance and lose all their forces without problems or a second thought.
I see the logic working like this.
AI faction population at start= n
Population growth per 24h = +x
At population 2n, then raid, using 1/4n
If losses = y%, then withdraw
Add in some modifiers and you have a winner.
This could be expanded to allow for some more sane kit and equipment choices. For example, you say that 1/10n = melee weapons, 1/10 = power armour, etc.
Mountains = Underground in my mind. If I was actually out there, I would go underground, and quickly. It's not difficult to build underground, not at all, it just take time, lumber, burlap, hessian, and a lot of rope, nails and hopefully a waterproof material. A MEXE shelter, or SKOP kit for trenches can protect very effectively against anything short of a direct or close in nuclear blast. A MEXE shelter can be connected, and assembled within 24 hours, I will have to pull out my notes on digging calculations, however I think 4-6 people could go underground for a space of 5x5 cells in game within 24h. (I am assuming based on scale, that 1square = 1m2)
Edit : I attached a quick decision matrix and calculator I put together in excel to illustrate my point. You can play around with the values. It's best I could come up with in five minutes on the topic. However, I'm sure we could expand it and expand some logic for it. It allows for -some- AI decision making abilities, to allow for a more reasoned AI rather than a -zerg swarm-. As you can see, it also gives some sort of economical basis for equipment distribution as well. It would probably be easy to modify for difficulty by adjusting some variables. It also abstracts somewhat an internal economy.
[attachment deleted due to age]
Killboxes: I do agree with you that a killbox can be advantageous if clever. But the bloody field or hallway with the carefully aligned turrets would likely be avoided by an intelligent strike force. If I see a turret, I'm going to evaluate my entry point.
AI Economics: For a long term goal, I love the idea of simulating the neighbors. But short term, I think the director selecting a goal based on recent events (captures, arrests) and available resources (expensive art, high food supplies) and creating an encounter to set things back a little is more reasonable.
That table is fun to play with by the way. It would be fun to play have that type of data motivating raids and negotiations.
With a raid having goals other than to just be a fight...
Well, it would still feel the same to people apt to only have one entrance and everything safe behind their front entrance with a killbox out front. But on failure like that (never seeing their goal), it could result in either an epic siege to break down the defenses, or it could call in a digging crew to break into the weakest side of the mountain, far from the main entrance.
And for people like me that utilize the outside... Raids using unique strategies, like rushing, splitting up or wall breaching, it would be a lot more reactive. And if everyone was injured, sick or sleeping, they'd leave when finished without incident. Unless they hate you, then they'd burn down your stock pile an smash your flower pots.
I just realized how ironic this topic is, and I only have 1 reason:
We are always playing defensive in home turf.
After hundreds and hundreds of hours perfecting my mountain bunkering technique, over dozens of colonies and many biomes, I see no reason to go outside besides to challenge myself.
Reasons I'd hunker down in a cave:
1. Unflankable: anyone who had some experience or knowledge in fights knows not to expose their back.
2. Unreliable constructed roof: mortars and drops pods, in my base?
Reasons I have to get outside the cave:
1. Energy: Not, mods for the win! :D But true enough for vanilla. All solar, wind, and geysers are outside. I see what you did there.
2. Wood: but not really, since you can still dismantle wooden weapon from raiders for some wood.
3. Trade beacon: Though not too far, still forces me to do so.
4. Mortars: because walking 200 blocks to a map edge just to kill sieges are a bitch. No, sieges can just waste all their ammo on my mountain rooftop.
5. Zombie Apocalypse: the mod almost succeeded by having airborne version that revives dead humans to zombies, forcing me to go out and burn them all. But I decided to put more pointy sticks on the front door instead.
6. Meat: Not anymore thanks to wargs :) It's like McDelivery if you have embrasures. And if warg meats are made inedible, well, there's still raider's meat. Especially Tribes :)
A foreseeable Tynan-Class trollboat to force me out of my mom... mountain's basement:
1. Earthquake incident: randomly crushes spaces below mountain rooftops.
2. Orbital drill pods: Drills and destroy mountain rooftops while deploying enemies through said holes
3. Resources: like steam geysers, but maybe Oil for example or other mining pits that can only spawn on open fields
4. Fog of war: a need to place sensor towers outside to remove FoW. Though I think the lag would kill my computer.
5. Ambush raiders: only detectable via sensor towers outside, works in tandem with #3 & 4, would either to turn the whole map into a military base or turtle further into the mountains.
6. Random bombardment/bunker busters locations: forces people to spread their base
7. Water resource: before someone mods pipes and pumps. Hauling itself is already hard, so please don't.
A counter-productive trolling possibilities:
1. Orbital Bombardment: If a mountain rooftop couldn't handle this, why even bother building outside?
2. Concentrated aerial bombardment & bunker busters: same reason as #1
3. Encirclement: Definitely worse when you are in the middle of the map
(https://i.imgflip.com/12icq5.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/12icq5) (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
Problem solved
You see? I do listen!
Quote from: Tynan on April 14, 2016, 03:09:14 PM
You see? I do listen!
We got what we asked for, didn't we. ;D
Looks like Tynan corrupted this wish :D
always be careful of what you wish for
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k1baFbKRam8/VhtBfhWBDHI/AAAAAAAACEw/hmchnKapnZA/s1600/twisted_claw_feat.png)
I recently noticed another unnecessary advantage of mountain bases: they're super clean.
Dirt is generated within a short time of pawn coming indoors from outside. Open bases have pawns constantly switching between indoors and outdoors. Indoor bases are very easy to clean, you just clean near the entrance.
Bugs do remedy that somewhat, as the amount of dirt and bugblood they spawn is obscene.
"Ice" surface on ice sheet is curious. Unlike other natural floors occuring outside, this one is inherently clean. Like with all natural floors, no dirt is ever spawned on it (I haven't noticed). The only downside is slow walking speed. But if it's a rarely used room, like hospital, it's a perfect alternative.
I wouldnt complain about that in the least, random rock fall from mortar hit.
I think a good work-around for doing more to have gameplay out in the open would be the ability to send your colonists off on raids or explorations of your own to find resources or go on hunting trips or whatever - you designate a few colonists as raiders or hunters, they disappear off map for a day or two, then you get to load into a new map with these colonists (probably best to make time pause on your home map during this time) and play out the hunt or the raid or whatever.
This would require an overhaul of the inventory system (maybe not for hunts - each colonist brings back a muffalo corpse) and the ability to generate new random maps with other factions on them which I imagine wouldn't be quick and easy but would encourage outdoorsy play on these away from home maps. Let people hunker down in their mountains if they wish, but if they don't want to risk a few colonists on a raid on a nearby pirate base to claim a few bionic limbs or an AI core or some Plasteel - that's on them.
here are my thoughts of open bases.
Manhunterpacks Murder Open bases.
unless you make a killbox or something brilliant, they murder your base.
to many openings. no warning on the charge. my bases constantly fear manhunter packs.
there are no mercy when the boombalopes or wargens strike. (and opening and closing your doors to pot shot at them feel cheesy)
Dry thunderstorm.
so open base.. in the open... lets hope that your colonists get their shit together and research stone cutting .. or else its gonna burn.
you can ask colonists to remove grass around your base when shit happen. but they have to work fast...
it all about defenses.
open colony, have.... more openings... need more turrets.. more turrets = more wealth (if I'm not mistaken) more wealth = more Raiders and bad stuff... its a endless circle of pain... so hard to replace the "wealth" efficient kill box... unless turrets don't make a base more desired to be raided?
but what are we aiming for here? to make open bases more desirable? or underground bases less?
if you aim for the later, things such as earthquakes that punishes underground players more might work.
but to have an "open base" more desired i like to see something like barbed wire? something that allow you to kinda direct the flow of the enemy yet not enclose your base. or give an advantage to the invaders.
have an "combat trained" skill for your tame animals to give them extra movement speed. since open bases without walls have more grass, that allows for animals as a better second hand defense.
practical items for the base like a chimney? gives warms + mood boost + light? sure it uses wood. but cannot be places under solid roof.
outdoor ? more dirt. dirt = time cleaning and less mood.
so things can be uses to lower that loses will help.
drop the pool table... give me a pool. a nice open pool to hold a party at. that bring all those vault delvers out in the open
how about something like a sprinkler? indoor bases get their food form sunlamps + hydroponics basin. thins that cost a lot of power.
and cant handle rain. so a thing that cant be used underground but help open bases gain faster food for less power is something to desire.
(dammit I made a wall of text)
In the ideal world or rather the un-ideal Rim-World I think mountain segregation could be solved using...
Water (+++plez+++)
Colonists and crops need water, water only located outside.
So in most conditions you set up a water butt (outside) as seen in Rust that collects during rain/snow
In a desert we could use high tech moisture farms (like star wars), that have to be exposed to outside conditions, with an area of exposure like a wind-turbine that effects it's gather rate.
Maybe also have Stagnant-Water available in lakes, that we can Distill using cooking apparatus.
Cave-ins
More struts/pillars are needed to stop caves from collapsing, maybe mining granite is safer than mining sandstone, though how that would be simulated sounds difficult to implement. Maybe tremors can cause rock to crash down
Harder Mining
Maybe mining a entire tile should take longer, or require expensive tools (that would be great but no doubt take a while to implement), the yields could be increased for balance.
Alternatively/Additionally, hauling could become a much bigger deal, with loose rock and stone chunks heavily impeding the process.
Metal
Currently metal largely needs to be gathered from the same level you reside in, creating caves that you might as well utilize, if steel was harvestable from underground (purely contextually/cosmetically) via some mine shaft node and/or using the scrap steel chunks accessible early game, a cavern free colony would be much more attainable.
Other
Towers: Being in the open means you can use towers
Turrets: Turrets could become hostile on certain events or when "hacked" by pirates/mechs. Turret recipes could also involve special ingredients, like -for instance- more bespoke Electronic-Components. They could also be made at differing qualities, like weapons, with poor craftsmanship yielding ineffective turrets.
Lobbing: Some weapons could fly over fortifications like arrows, grenades and launchers.
Traps: Simple traps have less chance to activate when humanoids cross them.
AI
AI Pathing: Stone Chunks are considered walls by enemy AI using ranged weapons, so their placement within kill boxes becomes impossible, tiles with a ceiling stone chunks could literally act as a wall.
AI Pathing 2: Each attacker death creates NoMansLand for enemy AI, when overlapped X times (i.e: 3 pawns die on one tile), the AI treats NoMansLand as a walled off area.
AI Targeting: AI simply would rather attack "outside" structures/targets, or rather facilities not capped by a mountain.
AI Sieges: Enemies prepare for the long hall, they build accommodation, have better relations with one another, and receive a mental boost based on expectation, perhaps they block communication as well. So sallying out becomes more important.
On the Bugs
I like them but they do feel a little too out of nowhere. The "get gd camp" might oppose toning them down, but personally a would much prefer more innately core reasons to not build in a mountain, i.e: LackOfX, the bugs spawning besides a nest in the middle of your base feels a bit too random, and happens a little too often. Maybe if it was a slower process with them constructing their nests it might feel more natural, just as is they feel a bit arbitrary.
...
Those are my thoughts, I'd particularity favor water becoming a driving something you get outside.
I can't think of any positive incentives to build in the open. Maybe planting devilstrand. But that is only viable if you have a lenghty growing period and skilled crafters.
Without adding something we need outside, oxygen/water/space/nutrition/light/awareness there's no way to provide incentive.
The only positive way I think it could be incentivised is if there way some way to mount walls, or mount stations where you can shoot over walls, then it might become more viable to have traditional defenses "outside".
There'd have to be some clever math relating to what line of sight would be, as hugging the wall from a distance should provide cover, whereas hugging a wall 1 tile from a tower should provide no cover.
Perhaps on that note a tower could ignore sandbag-like cover within a certain radius, as they would be shooting down onto more exposed units.
Those sorts of advantages might make it worth forgoing the intestine-corridors and kill-boxes, or maybe not idk.
I find that bases out in the open without outer wall don't live long, I just build a square shape outer wall around my buildings with many doors so that raiders split around and I can task all my colonists with melee to attack single targets at a time, a brief sallying out if you will. To make this work for sappers you have to use something like psychic shock lance on the grenadiers and after their demise the AI will turn into normal raid.
But really walls exist to give you time to prepare for bad things, can't blame people for using them and wanting embrasures.
Btw about 9 colonists with longswords are quite capable of taking down a centipede bashing on your doors quickly, without injuries.
I do like the idea of having mood boosting harvestable plants that grow only outdoors and the requirement for water and even the need to use the loo. I think you lot are on to something here. ;)
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on September 27, 2014, 09:11:05 AM
I, ever since my first game, have always made a mountain base, i check where the thin roof lines are and make sure not to expose my base under them in the event pods crash through. I always make my hallways 5 tiles wide, and line them with metal walls. Antimater reactors (i remove the build outdoors only restriction) I build at the back of my base, at the edge of the maps build-able area. The entrance to my base is through two types of killboxes that can deal with most anything. ship parts can be walled off and delt with. mechanoid raids are the only real concern but no biggie. food can be grown inside, trade post in the middle of my killbox saves space and give my people reason to go outside to avoid cabin fever. plus im always recovering crap and mining outside my base so its not much of an issue. I have no reason to do anything different.
That being said, a Horta would be an awesome idea, I loved that episode!
To get people out of the mountain, making mining more difficult would just slow down resource extraction way too much. I did suggest armoured roofing for buildings a while back but Tynan said it would unbalance the game. Not sure I agree if you make it costly but i get where he is coming from. Maybe a point defence laser array that shoots down hostile drop pods? or just shield domes? Id love to have an outside complex, but it is just far too exposed.
What do you mean by pods crashing through? I've always built mountain bases, I didn't know there was any other way to build a base. That's why I never choose a spot on the world map without Mountains.
I rarely place my colony inside mountain myself. And my biggest bother is that FALLOUT events ask for a fully roofed everything, while MANHUNTER PACK require a wall perimeter.
Hard to bring people out when 2 important event force you in.
Quote from: yaplash on May 23, 2016, 05:24:26 PM
What do you mean by pods crashing through? I've always built mountain bases, I didn't know there was any other way to build a base. That's why I never choose a spot on the world map without Mountains.
Raiding drop pods can punch through thin roofs, so unless you have a thick mountain roof over your head they can come down in the middle of your base.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on May 24, 2016, 12:49:24 PM
Quote from: yaplash on May 23, 2016, 05:24:26 PM
What do you mean by pods crashing through? I've always built mountain bases, I didn't know there was any other way to build a base. That's why I never choose a spot on the world map without Mountains.
Raiding drop pods can punch through thin roofs, so unless you have a thick mountain roof over your head they can come down in the middle of your base.
I just used developmental mode to build a non-mountain base, and raiders went right through the ceiling in drop pods.
I think that farms are one of the best encouragements to be outside. They have so many advantages. The other is security. I can secure my power sources much better.
AI is the biggest advantage to indoors. If AI accounted for threat, they would prioritize punching down walls or taking out power first. It wouldnt help the one way in out issues, but it would encourage more player and pawn activity, less auto killbox.
Cave ins of some sort would be the biggest. Lose some power cable, crush that bench. Not major, just an occasional rubble fall or mortars causing on mountain strike?
The concept of needing more external resources. Wells and such is nice. I do find bugs to be quite the enjoyable challenge. Though the notification system potentially tweaked.
What. About cabin fever more? Have it need to wear down by activity the same as heatstroke and frostbite?
Windowed wall potentially to remedy that with outdoors. Lets light in, so free no darkness. Also reduces cabin fever potential. Big help in extreme biomes. Tradeoff is they are a wall weakpoint. Ideal mechanic is one hit busting and act as sandbag til repaired similar to a breakdown.
I think windows is the best start. Simple structure, sandstone window etc that has many outdoor boons without complex code.
Maybe the colonists get a bad thought for living in a mountain, like "I'm underground -30" or "Claustrophobic -20"
Maybe claustrophobic could be a trait too, so certain colonists that are claustrophobic get a HUGE bad thought for living in a mountain.
That sort of forced play usually isn't too well received. It is kind of a block. Claustrophobic isn't a bad idea, but it would have to be separate from the mountain. Just negative mood more from small spaces. That is why it should be something in mechanics that makes it harder to take advantage of being underground. So natural lighting, growing zones, and wind/solar power generators are the big ones. If the AI went after those opposed to going through auto killboxes, then it means that a player will at least in part need to still build above ground.
The disadvantage stuff should feel natural. Bugs were a good one. But if there were the cave in potential, that would make it interesting. Claustrophobic with small roofed areas in general would be profound as well. Psychological sicknesses. Phobias acting just like frostbite or physical ailments. Over time it just increases. So if outside buildings, then your character is always getting a bit of sun, keeps that ailment from ever manifesting.
To keep it and cabin fever down in a mountain base, it would have to be massively sprawling. Large rooms and hallways. That then means more investment in the power systems and less efficient work due to larger areas to traverse. An indirect penalty instead of a direct one. It also is one that can still be countered if a person just likes the in mountain playstyle.
Quote from: Vaporisor on May 25, 2016, 06:38:47 PM
That sort of forced play usually isn't too well received. It is kind of a block. Claustrophobic isn't a bad idea, but it would have to be separate from the mountain. Just negative mood more from small spaces. That is why it should be something in mechanics that makes it harder to take advantage of being underground. So natural lighting, growing zones, and wind/solar power generators are the big ones. If the AI went after those opposed to going through auto killboxes, then it means that a player will at least in part need to still build above ground.
The disadvantage stuff should feel natural. Bugs were a good one. But if there were the cave in potential, that would make it interesting. Claustrophobic with small roofed areas in general would be profound as well. Psychological sicknesses. Phobias acting just like frostbite or physical ailments. Over time it just increases. So if outside buildings, then your character is always getting a bit of sun, keeps that ailment from ever manifesting.
To keep it and cabin fever down in a mountain base, it would have to be massively sprawling. Large rooms and hallways. That then means more investment in the power systems and less efficient work due to larger areas to traverse. An indirect penalty instead of a direct one. It also is one that can still be countered if a person just likes the in mountain playstyle.
Cave in's - oh man, I can already imagine it now. A colonist gets trapped behind a cave in and you've got to dig them out before they starve. Would lead to some pretty cool stories!
Farming and power production has always had me build my colony half in half out.
too many things can punching thought the roof that can total your base not to have atleast some part of base under a rock roof
use of water and water bodies could help
Fishing and fish farming could help
Fences and low rock walls would help expand out
Pawns on Patrol - Pawns range from a base set distances - job - pest/wildlife control , farm animals protect, come to aid of other pawns being attacked , break up fights :P
Rework mining and how its done - Low lvl miners only able to mine x distances from outside area
- Low lvl miners only able to mine smaller rooms
- Low lvl mined areas that do exceed the above are classed a very unstable
- Load bearing walls and pillers under a mountain must be build by high lvl miner-builder (pawn skilled in both)
- Research skill - for reworking low lvl mined areas and to make larger rooms
- support beams (bit like door frames) for long tunnels also able destroy to cause collapes or area to be unstable
all will increase the inherent danger of mining and increase time,resources and skills needed to build a "Safer" base under the mountain
You no longer need to get outside to produce electricity! A fuel generator yields 1000W and heat. In non-desert biomes you can run fine on 1-2 fueled generators, and just BUY wood from traders. On desert you may need to do something with excess heat.
I'm new to the game, and already I'm wondering what incentive there is to build outdoors. I understand that I can simply "just say no" to making a mountain vault. But ideally a game should present one with tradeoffs that make the outdoor/indoor decision an interesting one. I do think I'll try making my next colony outdoors just because I want to. But I'm curious -- are there any advantages to a non-mountain colony?
easier and faster to built, you could plan broader
also more space to farm, depending on where you are
less digging.
The funny thing though, my colonies really look any different if built inside or outside .. somewhat between an anthill, fortress and burrow
There is only two reasons I build in a mountain.
1. Natural and invincible protection from mortars.
2. Its way easier to force raids into choke points.
Even against sappers, deep mountain bases allow you to control the engagement. The sappers generally just dig into my kill box from a different angle. In the rare occasions when they try to dig directly into my base, I have more than enough time to set up behind them and kill them with comparatively little injury to my colonists.
The infestation is harsh and is providing a negative incentive against building deep mountain bases, but they happen infrequently enough that such bases are still preferable.
Building out in the open against sappers is doable, with the right planning.
But protecting an open base from mortars requires an early attack. There are basically no other options there, and this why mountain bases are preferable. If your caught by a siege ill prepared or soon after some other catastrophic event, you may as well kiss your base goodbye.
My problem with this is the lack of options that don't involve "attack immediately". With a mountain base I can wait and prepare. And frankly that will always be preferable. I hated blitz strats in RTS games, and Im not a fan of them here.
To bring me out into the open there is going to need to be some benefit or means of allowing a well designed colony to protect itself from that threat.
Now that manual roofing is in, I would love to see the option of building reinforced roofing. Such that it can take X number of hits from a mortar before the roof collapses and lets the mortars in. It should also cost resources to build the reinforced roofing.
I think my biggest bar to building outside is the early dearth of acceptable building materials. I have zero desire to build any sort of structure with wood, and I don't like to use up my steel for walls or doors (especially since it burns). That leaves mountain dwellings as my only default, with a single wooden door that I'll later augment with a granite door.
If stone cutting was an option as soon as I landed, I'd be more likely to build away from mountains (though still not too likely; raw stone is still a better defense than stone walls)
Quote from: RazTheGnome on July 31, 2016, 03:21:53 PM
I do think I'll try making my next colony outdoors just because I want to. But I'm curious -- are there any advantages to a non-mountain colony?
It's been two years since my last post in this thread and I had to learn during the last weeks that some things change, some stay the same.
There are some benefits to being outside.
- Your doods don't feel cramped and you can easily socially control your colonists.
Most of your people will spend most of the time outdoors so you don't have to fixate on room wealth or beauty to keep them productive. Pawns that tend to fight get relocated to different corners of the base.
On the other hand, it is economical to build an antfarm (rooms next to rooms, with only a minimum of hallways). Your pawns will travel shorter distances, thus maximize their output. In the end an open colony might develop into a mountain fortress without the overhead mountain.
- You can farm all year round on a much larger scale.
You can still use hydroponics for its fast growing nutrient output while at the same time farming cash crops or sustaining a large animal population. Omnivorous animals like dogs can be fed on an agrarian diet, and be used as zerglings during a fight or haul stuff from left to right thus freeing your colonists from this mundane task. You can support a large animal population below ground too, but it needs more resources (steel and components for the hydroponics, power to not have your plants die).
Due to the higher food output of outdoor colonies you can effectively increase the amount of work done per capita. - You can have horticulture.
With horticulture you can support fuel generators which in turn replace batteries, thus not having your base go boom in a giant 40-battery-zzt. You need less components to build and maintain your power network. You are more flexible in your power network design. Instead of having one large grid you can power every house individually since fuel generators have a smaller footprint per wattage than any other generator, except for wind turbines. But those need batteries, which increases their effective cost and footprint. On the same footprint of a solar generator you can generate 2.5 times the energy with fuel genis. - Fights are way more fun. In a mountain base you get the raid notification, check the enemy's strength and power up your turrets. You'll notice that the fight is over, because you can resume your speed-3 snoozefest.
Outdoors, and specifically in an open (i.e. non-perimeter walled) colony you'll check the enemy strength, devise a battleplan, sally forth and fight the enemy tooth and nail for every inch, so that he doesn't set your fields on fire. Oh, and you watch your pack of hauling animals tear them a new one. You decide which sounds more fun.
There are problems with this approach. But they can be solved by a good base layout. Sieges do the most damage if everything in your colony is packed tight. Empty spaces safeguard against overhead drops as well as you can use the structures of your base for cover. A good designed house offers cover and vantage points in all direction, so that you can make a stand there. Always build multiple doors into rooms to allow for fast position changes and evacuation in case a position gets overrun.
Most mountain bases fall quickly after the killbox is breached. Outdoor colonies can be somewhat more resilient in that regard since, ideally every house should be a 360° killbox.
I usually build 2-bedroom houses. One for a grower to tend to the immediate surrounding fields and a craftsman to ply his trade. Food is produced centrally and distributed to a refrigerated room in every second or third house. (Houses where the craftsman doesn't need a lot of space like artisans, tailors, researchers or construction workers.)
As an outdoor colony you can't just subsist and live from what you produce. Since your colonists will get into fights regularly and they will get hurt you'll need a steady supply of body parts. Most of your production should be geared towards buying every piece of prosthetic limb a traders hauls your way.
A lot has changed in the past 2 years. But the joy of repelling an overwhelming force with clever tactics instead of building Raider Auschwitz has, at least for me, remained the same.
Best regards
Quote from: Tynan on September 27, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.
It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?
For me space ship parts won't draw me. I'm a "lone explorer" or "Lost tribe" type and fleeing the planet in a space ship feels like LOSING to me. I didn't crash land. I'm here to get conquer the worlds challenges, or perhaps to build up a colony strong enough to repel the demon machines from the sky when they show up again. Leaving isn't an option.
So what would make me feel that building out in the open was a great idea?
- Mood benefits for being able to walk safely out in the open air
- Better defenses . . . upgraded turrets, fences to slow down enemies without using steel, etc . . .
- Some idea of which direction enemies are coming from based on the location of their bases so I can set my base in a spot where distance and terrain give me advantages outside.
- Mood benefits and friendship building for allowing visitors peacefully into my base and letting them hang around with my people in a "village" perhaps even becoming friendly with the surrounding factions over time and even getting treaties with them.
- The ability to set up trading post zones and get repeated traders but they need an open path to the trade area.
- Story Tellers who I know aren't purposefully trying to push me off the planet . . . I don't want to leave. As I said leaving is LOSING.
Over all setting up a successful colony shouldn't be easy . . . but I don't want to tell the same crash landed story over and over again. The standard Rimworld game plays out like the classic book "Swiss Family Robinson". It's great for the crash landed scenario . . . but for anything else you are hitting your head against a wall.
I'd like to tell stories about internal factions within the colony. Politics. Trade. Exploration. Building. Eventually I'd like to transition from building an initial base for "defense" over to building parks, gardens, fountains, huge plantations . . . Trade agreements with other colonies and with the stars. It might be fun to set up an Inn or Hotel and to see my colony grow a bit larger than ten or twelve people.
I'm not saying I should get there right away . . . but that's what a "win" looks like to me, and the more secure and well defended I get the more likely I'm going to say "Staying in this cave/fortress" is boring . . . lets try something else.
Hope that makes sense. I do build outside fairly often but even then my colony feels like a fortress more than anything else and I tend to rush towards getting stone working early on if I'm going to be building outside.
well for people who don't want to preemptively attack sieges using their pawns, the other option is to use a combination of incendiary and explosive mortars.
aim the incendiary mortar around their ammo stockpiles and aim the explosive mortars at the enemy mortars. even with just two mortars, countering a siege is possible if you manage to burn their ammunition early.
Quote from: winddbourne on August 01, 2016, 01:44:46 AM
Mood benefits and friendship building for allowing visitors peacefully into my base and letting them hang around with my people in a "village" perhaps even becoming friendly with the surrounding factions over time and even getting treaties with them.
The hospitality mod does some of that. You can build guest rooms with special guest beds and some joy items. If they liked their stay you will get a relationship bonus and they will drop some stuff (usually food). They can also buy stuff you leave in the guest room.
Quote from: keylocke on August 01, 2016, 04:39:30 AM
countering a siege is possible if you manage to burn their ammunition early.
Unfortunately, they seem to have an endless supply from space. I once stole their whole batch while they were sleeping and apart from acquiring free ammo, it didn't do much to stop the bombardment.
Quote from: hwfanatic on August 09, 2016, 05:21:44 AM
Quote from: keylocke on August 01, 2016, 04:39:30 AM
countering a siege is possible if you manage to burn their ammunition early.
Unfortunately, they seem to have an endless supply from space. I once stole their whole batch while they were sleeping and apart from acquiring free ammo, it didn't do much to stop the bombardment.
Perhaps you should also have used the chance and planted an IED-Trap next to their mortars :D
Why eveyone assumes people should be driven from their covers and all solutions is how to penalize turtlers so much that they will venture outside.
It is virtually impossible to defend without walls in RimWorld against numberless vast hordes.
Maybe add some benefits to more offensive builds? Because now I can't see a situation where I will not wall my entire colony because benefits of turtling outweight negative sides, if there's any. Even if there will be maluses to mood and other things game must do something hugely horrible to make people go aways from sure and safe way to protect their colony.
Nerfing mountain bases wasn't the way to go, there's a reason people hole up in mountains constantly. One of the big reasons (At least for me) is that I don't like dealing with huge sieges that have 5x the people i have, so instead of having my entire base decimated by mortars, I make sure those stupid weapons can't hit me.
I'd like to see LoS artillery, replace the mortar with a 155cm cannon or something. Outside just needs to be better.
It's about nature of the game, where vast majority of colony deaths comes from not walling fast enough. Why bother with open colony when only chance to survival is AI behaviour exploits?
Quote from: Blastoderm on August 09, 2016, 09:18:39 AM
It's about nature of the game, where vast majority of colony deaths comes from not walling fast enough. Why bother with open colony when only chance to survival is AI behaviour exploits?
It also comes down to the AI storyteller and difficulty level one chooses.
If one chooses the highest difficulty, one shouldn't wonder that things only can be solved via exploiting the AI
(the reason why I prefer to stay at medium difficulty ... nice balance of building and events (although, I dislike the scarcity of trading ships and caravans that came with the last update))
It's totally fine and good to mountain-base. It's preferrable to all other alternatives, with good reason, and should stay that way.
Because it's only possible on mountainous maps..
So... Unless you directly AIM for mountainbasing, cheat your way to it by manually selecting mountainous start in order to mountainbase, it's not gonna happen very often at all. And so the OP question doesn't make much sense to me.
Then again, it IS a post from 2014, about what is essentially A WHOLE DIFFERENT GAME, so... no worries.
Just random your maps.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 09, 2016, 12:38:32 PM
So... Unless you directly AIM for mountainbasing, cheat your way to it by manually selecting mountainous start
Thats's a pretty weird notion right there. To call using a game mechanic cheating is a weak argument at best.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 09, 2016, 12:38:32 PM
Then again, it IS a post from 2014, about what is essentially A WHOLE DIFFERENT GAME, so... no worries.
The problem is, that it isn't a whole different game. It is exactly the same game, with some added mechanics. But most of these mechanics directly favour mountain-bases or at least don't hamper them as much as open colonies.
We've seen the addition of new events to which the only adequate response is: build a mountain-base.
Manhunters, toxic fallout, sieges, volcanic winter.
Only one event has been added that penalizes mountain bases and that can be partially averted (cool your base below -17 or scatter stuff around).
The trader nerf has made it pretty much irrelevant to exploit an outside bases benefits, growing cashcrops. During the time between traders you'll be visited by at least half a dozen raids to which the only response as an open colony would be to cut your wealth in order to restrict them in size. A killbox-mountain doesn't have that problem.
The core-problem has been identified in 2014 and nothing has changed since then. The game still favours mountain bases and it is by design. Due to poor design, players are restricted to a single way to win the game, thus the purpose of having a sandbpx is defeated.
Historically, building mountain dwellings or generally speaking mining, has had severe drawbacks. There are plenty of reasons why early human kind settled outside of caves once their numbers grew instead of expanding their caverns.
But the game doesn't implement any systems that would model the restraints and makes it too easy to mine in general. If mining required more time or a resource investment, progression for this game would be:
1. Build a makeshift camp during early game (outside)
2. Slowly grow into the mountain during mid-game.
3. Complete your kill-box in endgame.
As it stands right now, the game is heavily biased in favour of mountain bases which limits the vanilla gameplay.
Quote from: Varnhagen on August 09, 2016, 03:28:24 PM
Quote from: Lightzy on August 09, 2016, 12:38:32 PM
So... Unless you directly AIM for mountainbasing, cheat your way to it by manually selecting mountainous start
Thats's a pretty weird notion right there. To call using a game mechanic cheating is a weak argument at best.
^ This.
Random start is not the default/standard/only way to play.
If it was you wouldn't have the option to pick your start at all.
Picking your start is not cheating. It is an
allowed playstyle choice.
And further, choosing to play on a mountain map does not mean you want to build a mountain base. It should be fully possible to build an open colony and just use the mountains as a source for mining.
Quote from: Varnhagen on August 09, 2016, 03:28:24 PM
...
We've seen the addition of new events to which the only adequate response is: build a mountain-base.
Manhunters, toxic fallout, sieges, volcanic winter.
....
Actually I have to disagree ...
a mountain base isn't necessary to combat these events.
Having your base in one or multiple buildings actually is enough.
(if in multiple buiildings, then ideally connected via roofed walkways, to not be affected even a little bit by toxic fallout while moving between the buildings .. also, ideally with double walls in order to be better insulated against heat/cold)
The only real advantages of mountain bases are, that the parts directly under the mountain are protected from mortar fire. And that, by digging out rooms, you also have a chance for getting ores and stones (whereas a base in free terrain has to cover distances (to the next hill/mountain) in order to dig for steel (and digging for steel and building rooms are separate tasks)
QuoteWe've seen the addition of new events to which the only adequate response is: build a mountain-base.
Manhunters, toxic fallout, sieges, volcanic winter.
Of the above, Only Sieges require mountain bases. All the others just require interior passageways.
Personally, I would like to see the roof mechanic updated to make the decision more interesting. For example, imagine if you had options for roofs, like, glass, which would allow for green houses, or solar panel roofs for power, turf roof for insulation, or reinforced concrete which would allow you to build bunkers. Imagine if different wall/column material had different distances over which they could support, so roofs supported by wood or stone columns might only allow a 5x5 room, but plasteel would allow 12x12. Then imagine that different roof materials might give penalties or bonuses. So, a wood roof might give a +1 bonus to room size, whereas a concrete roof might be -3. Imagine that your mine roofs with overhead mountain would need more support then empty air. So, mountain bases would inherently need more columns to support the roofs.
Quote from: Kagemusha12 on August 09, 2016, 03:51:14 PM
Actually I have to disagree ...
a mountain base isn't necessary to combat these events.
Having your base in one or multiple buildings actually is enough.
(if in multiple buiildings, then ideally connected via roofed walkways, to not be affected even a little bit by toxic fallout while moving between the buildings .. also, ideally with double walls in order to be better insulated against heat/cold)
Building an antfarm (single-house base) or a fortress (multi-house, constructed pathways) isn't exactly that much distinct from building a mountainbase. The only difference is the lack of an overhead mountain, but functionally and gameplay-wise it is pretty much the same.
Let's go through the scenarios and the response for an open colony and a mountain-base.
Manhunter
- Mountain base: Forbid your single entrance door. Wait for traders to arrive. Pick up the loot. Effect: Free loot.
- Antfarm: Forbid your multiple or single entrance doors. Wait for traders to arrive. Pick up the loot. Effect: Free loot.
- Fortress: Forbid your single entrance door. Wait for traders to arrive. Pick up the loot. Effect: Free loot.
- Open multi-house Colony: Bunk all your pawns in the dining room. Get mood debuffs. Wait for pawns to break or manhunters to tire. Beat your colonists senseless or sally forth against the sleeping manhunters. Effect: Injuries. Debuffs. Possibly game loss.
Toxic Fallout
- Mountain base: Don't care. Effect: Don't care.
- Antfarm: Zone all pawns indoors that don't necessarily have to go out. Manage the outdoor times of the others. Effect: Don't care too much.
- Fortress: Zone all pawns indoors that don't necessarily have to go out. Manage the outdoor times of the others. Effect: Don't care too much.
- Open multi-house Colony: Rebuild your base into an antfarm or fortress. Micromanage all pawns' exposure times. Sow like crazy. Effect: Lose a lot of development time and most of your harvest.
Volcanic Winter
- Mountain base: Don't care. Base is climatized anyway. If not: Climatize your base. Effect: Lose a little development time.
- Antfarm: Don't care. Antfarm is climatized anyway. If not: Climatize your antfarm. Effect: Lose a little development time.
- Fortress: Don't care. Fortress is climatized anyway. If not: Climatize your fortress. Effect: Lose a little development time.
- Open multi-house Colony: Rebuild your base into an antfarm or fortress for ease of climatizing it. Alternatively have your pawns wear those parkas that were destined to be exported. Effect: Lose a lot of development time or part of your exports.
Siege
- Mountain base: Don't care. Forbid your single entrance. We don't want pawns wandering around. Effect: none.
- Antfarm: Care very much. Everything important is grouped together. So even a miss is a hit. Sally forth and build a mountain-base on the next map. Effect: Engage in a combat style you are unfamiliar with, exploit the AI or savescum. Learn for the future.
- Fortress: Care somewhat. There's a chance that some shells hit something important. Sally forth and build a mountain-base on the next map. Effect: Engage in a combat style you are unfamiliar with, exploit the AI or savescum. Learn for the future.
- Open multi-house Colony: Don't care too much. As long as my pawns aren't lumped together all should be well until morning light. Sally forth at your convenience, engage in a combat style you are familiar with, exploit the AI or savescum.
Since the game is more of a tower defense game, and less of a "colony simulator", all viable strategies point towards dwarfing. That's a pretty severe design flaw. Above mentioned events aren't balanced in any way and don't change anything for the viability of mountain-bases while having negative consequences for the settlement style actual humans have preferred for the last 10.000 years of known human history.
Additionally, this single-minded endgame invalidates most scenarios. Early game might differ, but once a player is established there are only three ways to reach the endgame: Dwarf on a mountain map, build an antfarm or fortress on open maps - all three of those strategies are functionally equivalent, thus limiting further the already limited scope of the vanilla experience that Tynan is actually developing.
The arguments are quite exaggerated but Varnhagen have a point. Those events do urge you to bunker, which is sad when we know how much Tynan worked to eradicate killbox.
You can survive in a Village-type colony but the game will make you feel you are doing it wrong all the times.
If I were to suggest potential solution...
- "Manhunter" pack wouldn't rush to your base, they just wander around in much smaller pack, eating wildlife. Since they WANDER AWAY you can't just bait them into attacking your killbox, however you are encouraged to arms traps all around/inside your settlement.
- FALLOUT would also get inside rooms except those with costly electrical air-purifier (with a % efficiency so you can't build room indefinitely large), meaning that even a mountain-base would need a Safe-Room. The challenge change from "stay inside" to "invest in gas mask or one costly air-purifier"
- Volcanic Winter would make mountain-base colder, so it's an economic problem. Fortress and village would need less energy to heat up again.
- Siege... don't change actually. I would only make the AI much much harder to bait.
Honestly, I'd say a pretty big buff to being outside, and a decent nerf to mountain bases would be to change the way mortars work. Don't make them indirect fire, make them direct fire. The projectiles should hit walls, pawns etc. Do quite a bit of damage to walls that it contacts.
What this will do, is both make outside bases stronger, because they can actually defend against a siege, but it will also make mountain bases weaker, because now they are vulnerable. A big enough siege with enough ammo would grind away your mountain.
Otherwise, all other events are fine imo. I don't mind dealing with volcanic winter, toxic fallout etc, my bases are usually Dwarf Fortress style anyway, outside or inside.
I played far more open bases (separate houses) than any other base design. It's true that you mostly get the downsides and no upsides.
One thing you forgot it's drop pods. Open bases are very resistant to them because in worst case you're getting one house damaged, and if they drop on top of a colonist you order him to flee leaving door open or closed, your choice. If open your furniture won't get damaged. But again mountain base doesn't take any damage from that.
It's not true that volcanic winter is so nasty - in wooded biomes you can just cut trees and keep warm with campfires.
Toxic fallout is no longer so devastating for crops, especially devilstrand, because of the Roof Build Zone. You can build a couple of pillars and build roof around them. Walls are no longer necessary.
Fire - open base is very resistant, as long as you use stone. Mountain base, with no roof removal - not so much. You really want a firepopper in your hydroponics.
I also think "rebuilding the base as a fortress" is exaggerated. All you need is a single perimeter wall, and you can make it out of wood until you have more resources.
===============
Dirt - open bases are VERY DIRTY. Dirt is dragged everywhere, but mountain bases are super clean by default. Does it make sense ? (http://www.geevor.com/media/images/miners%20story.jpg)
Mountain bases recently got hit with a stick, but carrots for open bases are still missing. You can farm a lot of devilstrand, if it's warm enough. You can farm corn. That's it. Drop pods decay far too slowly to make a difference. What we need are events which reward open bases (especially in the middle of map) more than a mountain base in the corner. Here are some ideas:
- race for loot. Drop pods with weapons, medicine, simple prosthetics, bionics, helmets, armor vests, personal shields... but with a catch. A hostile faction was listening to radio transmissions or saw flames in the sky, they arrive to investigate. THEY SERVE AS A TIME LIMIT, if you don't get to the drop zone first they will get the loot instead.
- hungry predators attacking wounded people from escape pods. A mountain base would have less chance of saving a potentially good colonist.
- trees, mushrooms or other plants emiting mood improving spores. If you build your base near them, you get a benefit. If you build a termite mound base, they probably won't reproduce because of no free soil.
- passing traders. Traders which don't stop in your colony but you can trade with them if you're fast and not turtling too much.
As long as there's a chance to randomly lose everything you struggled to build and created to the unbeatable horde nothing will force me to abandon mountain bases. Just because I value my time.
That's if I am simply playing for fun, not doing any challenges a-la DF "evil biome embarks" or "no-metal fortress"
Quote from: Blastoderm on August 10, 2016, 05:52:39 AM
As long as there's a chance to randomly lose everything you struggled to build and created to the unbeatable horde nothing will force me to abandon mountain bases. Just because I value my time.
That's if I am simply playing for fun, not doing any challenges a-la DF "evil biome embarks" or "no-metal fortress"
Difference between this and DF though, is that in DF, above ground fortresses are completely viable. Just why would you when you're playing dorf fort?
Quote from: erdrik on August 09, 2016, 03:37:47 PM
Quote from: Varnhagen on August 09, 2016, 03:28:24 PM
Quote from: Lightzy on August 09, 2016, 12:38:32 PM
So... Unless you directly AIM for mountainbasing, cheat your way to it by manually selecting mountainous start
Thats's a pretty weird notion right there. To call using a game mechanic cheating is a weak argument at best.
^ This.
Random start is not the default/standard/only way to play.
If it was you wouldn't have the option to pick your start at all.
Picking your start is not cheating. It is an allowed playstyle choice.
And further, choosing to play on a mountain map does not mean you want to build a mountain base. It should be fully possible to build an open colony and just use the mountains as a source for mining.
I'll help you figure it out.
If someone takes mountainous start with the intention of making a mountain base, then obviously that's cheesing one's way to the mountainbase.
he made sure he'll get a mountainbase (probably with an all-year growing period to go with it), even though he didn't have to.
If he does this, then there is no logic in also complaining that the mountainbase is too good and that it must be nerfed.
Nobody's forcing you but your own desire to "cheat" by creating the best conditions you can think of for yourself.
Myself, instead of cheesing it, play random.
So there's something for everybody. Those who want an easy game and those who want a harder game and those who want random.
Also, infestations weren't around back in 2014 I think.
One thing that would help is less farmable soil in mountains. Countries like Greece aren't farming powerhouses, because rock can't support crops very well.
In Rimworld farmable soil starts pretty much right outside the mountain. It doesn't feel like you're sacrificing something by landing in mountains. You still have plenty of soil, because farming in Rimworld -still- doesn't use all that much soil. Even in the desert it doesn't feel like you're pressured to build hydroponics to get more soil.
Areas close to mountains should have less soil and that soil should be mostly gravel.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 10, 2016, 08:15:59 AM
One thing that would help is less farmable soil in mountains. Countries like Greece aren't farming powerhouses, because rock can't support crops very well.
In Rimworld farmable soil starts pretty much right outside the mountain. It doesn't feel like you're sacrificing something by landing in mountains. You still have plenty of soil, because farming in Rimworld -still- doesn't use all that much soil. Even in the desert it doesn't feel like you're pressured to build hydroponics to get more soil.
Areas close to mountains should have less soil and that soil should be mostly gravel.
That would be nice, but the issue is that building outside is a stupid idea, mainly because mortars are stupid, see what I suggested earlier
Quote from: Lightzy on August 10, 2016, 07:48:15 AM
...
I'll help you figure it out.
I didn't ask you to help figure anything out.
Because there is
nothing to figure out.
Picking your start position is not cheating.
It is an allowed game play option.
It is a scenario.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 10, 2016, 07:48:15 AM
If someone takes mountainous start with the intention of making a mountain base, then obviously that's cheesing one's way to the mountainbase.
he made sure he'll get a mountainbase (probably with an all-year growing period to go with it), even though he didn't have to.
If he does this, then there is no logic in also complaining that the mountain base is too good and that it must be nerfed.
Nobody's forcing you but your own desire to "cheat" by creating the best conditions you can think of for yourself.
Literally none of this makes any sense.
"he made sure he'll get a mountainbase" ?!?
Of course he did.
That was the intent!
Thats not cheating. That is
playing a scenario.
If the
intent of the playthrough is to make a mountain base and you pick a random start, all you are doing is backing down from your intent.
The hell is the point of intending to build a mountain base then randomizing the start so that you could get no mountains?! If you don't get mountains then you either may as well start over until you roll mountains, or
give up your intent.
Random Start is for playing the challenge of not knowing your start.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 10, 2016, 07:48:15 AM
Myself, instead of cheesing it, play random.
So there's something for everybody. Those who want an easy game and those who want a harder game and those who want random.
Ah! Now I see.
You just want an excuse to say you are better than anyone who doesn't do things your way.
::)
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 10, 2016, 08:15:59 AM
One thing that would help is less farmable soil in mountains. Countries like Greece aren't farming powerhouses, because rock can't support crops very well.
In Rimworld farmable soil starts pretty much right outside the mountain. It doesn't feel like you're sacrificing something by landing in mountains. You still have plenty of soil, because farming in Rimworld -still- doesn't use all that much soil. Even in the desert it doesn't feel like you're pressured to build hydroponics to get more soil.
Areas close to mountains should have less soil and that soil should be mostly gravel.
I do like the idea of a soil disparity between biomes, but as Reviire said soil alone won't pull me out of a mountain.
hmmm... a thought occurs..
What if crops depleted the nutrients in soil after like one or two harvests?
Then the nutrients regrow over the course of like... I dunno half a year or maybe a whole year?
(just what ever is longer than it takes to deplete)
In that case, I feel like the abundance of flat land in plains and forests would allow open bases to cycle farm plots and make best use of soil. While the limited space of mountainous regions would limit this, sometimes leading to all available soil being infertile.
Imma put this in its own post..
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 10, 2016, 08:15:59 AM
In Rimworld farmable soil starts pretty much right outside the mountain.
Heck, you can find farmable soil "inside" by uncovering open areas in what first looked to be mountains. At least those patches should be covered in gravel or low fertility soil.
QuoteI'll help you figure it out.
If someone takes mountainous start with the intention of making a mountain base, then obviously that's cheesing one's way to the mountainbase.
he made sure he'll get a mountainbase (probably with an all-year growing period to go with it), even though he didn't have to.
If he does this, then there is no logic in also complaining that the mountainbase is too good and that it must be nerfed.
Nobody's forcing you but your own desire to "cheat" by creating the best conditions you can think of for yourself.
Myself, instead of cheesing it, play random.
So there's something for everybody. Those who want an easy game and those who want a harder game and those who want random.
Also, infestations weren't around back in 2014 I think.
Oh for crying out loud, get over yourself.
What happens when a player
randomly rolls a mountain start? The inherent advantages of dwarfing are still there and still a problem. What do you think about
that, now that you're not distracting yourself with this ridiculous fixation you've got on how they've violated some idiotic standard of purity by not rolling random?
Wait, let me guess: you think it's not a problem that one strategy is far superior because players who don't want to make it easy for themselves can just decide not to do it, right? It's like you've got a fundamental disagreement with trying to balance things.
Quotehmmm... a thought occurs..
What if crops depleted the nutrients in soil after like one or two harvests?
Then the nutrients regrow over the course of like... I dunno half a year or maybe a whole year?
(just what ever is longer than it takes to deplete)
In that case, I feel like the abundance of flat land in plains and forests would allow open bases to cycle farm plots and make best use of soil. While the limited space of mountainous regions would limit this, sometimes leading to all available soil being infertile.
Imma put this in its own post..
If a system of dynamic soil fertility were in place, I would expect to be able to rotate through a few different types of crops to avoid depleting the soil. This works even better than letting a field lay fallow for a season, and I'd be
highly annoyed if the game simulated the problem without simulating the best real world solution appropriate for the level of technology (which hasn't been "let it sit for a while" since the 1500s).
Calm down people, the debate is not about blaming mountain-base as a cheats, it's about making mountain base and fortress* have as many pros & cons than an open base. The ideals being to make it as hard to play a Mountain-base than an fully open one.
*and by fortress I mean everything with a perimeter wall or indoor farm.
Ideas I've seen discussed so far :
- Giving (soil, moods, hygiene, other) advantage to open base. (difficult task since it don't apply to fortress)
- Increasing Soil disparity
- changing Events so they don't encourage closed base. (the Manhunter pack alone force you already to build a fort)
- adding new event that would go precisely against walled-up colony (the super Ant is only being mean against mountain base, not balancing the different aspect)
- modifying how temperature work
- adding cave-in
- modifying the technology (from generator, air conditioning to mortar)
- changing how enemy AI work (limited but still)
- modifying drastically roof mechanics*
*doing that in a way that don't make "already roofed" mountain even easier will be difficult, also, working on the vertical dimension is big no from Tynan, even roof count.
Quote from: Reviire on August 10, 2016, 10:48:03 AM
That would be nice, but the issue is that building outside is a stupid idea, mainly because mortars are stupid, see what I suggested earlier
Mortars are not a problem for any experienced player. I don't remember the last time I let mortars actually damage something. By a combination of skill and luck I always have a sniper rifle ready. If I don't have a sniper rifle, I can outmaneuver them with survival rifle.
And recently I discovered EMP mortar is adequate counter to sieges. An EMP mortar has blast radius larger than sunlamp's radius. It stuns mortars and mechanoids for 40 seconds. Then they go to sleep, and there are several ways to handle mortars when the team is asleep:
- build IED traps in interaction spots
- deconstruct them
- shoot them until they explode
- build roof over them
Quote from: erdrik on August 10, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
I do like the idea of a soil disparity between biomes, but as Reviire said soil alone won't pull me out of a mountain.
It doesn't need to. Balance is best done one step at a time, otherwise it's too easy to overcompensate.
If mountains have less soil, mountainous bases will have more trouble with cotton, too. It's currently not important but nice to have, especially for armchairs. Animal beds, too. There's generally enough leather and looted clothing to dress your colonists. But what about carpets ? They need research and stat-wise they are on par with stone tiles, I think they even have very similar wealth rating. It's likely that carpets will become flammable, too. So carpets really need perks, like extra beauty, isolation bonus, ability to hide conduits. Make carpets more desirable and reduced amount of soil will become a bigger problem.
Note less soil means less grazing space and less livestock. Make livestock more desirable and scarcity of soil will become a bigger problem.
You could also make trees harder to grow near to mountains, but lobbying here may be difficult because Tynan doesn't like tree farming.
Quote from: erdrik on August 10, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
What if crops depleted the nutrients in soil after like one or two harvests?
Micromanagement hell. Reducing the amount of soil enough + maybe making cotton, devilstrand, haygrass more space hungry would have the same effect.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 10, 2016, 06:47:56 PM
Quote from: erdrik on August 10, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
What if crops depleted the nutrients in soil after like one or two harvests?
Micromanagement hell. Reducing the amount of soil enough + maybe making cotton, devilstrand, haygrass more space hungry would have the same effect.
I disagree. With soil depletion, all you have to do is rotate your crops, which in and of itself would take up more space (between 2 and 3 times, if you want to leave land fallow), or plant legumes and other nitrogen-fixing crops.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 10, 2016, 06:47:56 PM
Quote from: erdrik on August 10, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
What if crops depleted the nutrients in soil after like one or two harvests?
Micromanagement hell. Reducing the amount of soil enough + maybe making cotton, devilstrand, haygrass more space hungry would have the same effect.
You have an interesting definition of micromanagement hell...
Im not sure farm growth is fast enough for me to consider it micro-hell...
Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms.
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 10, 2016, 08:47:54 PM
Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms.
Make enemies
not dogpile through "killboxes", maybe?
Yes, the concentration of force is an integral part of fortifications in real life, but in real life, attackers can also recognize that running into a killzone is a
bad ideaThat is, after all, why sieges and sappers were implemented. Granted, they aren't very effective, but that can always be worked on.
In my opinion, sieges shouldn't just lob mortar rounds at your colony for shits and giggles. Instead, they should be aiming at production structures; power plants, farm fields, etc. If your base is entirely inside a mountain (and therefore, entirely reliant on fueled generators for their power,) then they should just basically hang around outside your base and kill/capture any merchants that try to bring you supply. Once your base runs out of power, you will pretty much be screwed.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 10, 2016, 06:47:56 PM
Quote from: Reviire on August 10, 2016, 10:48:03 AM
That would be nice, but the issue is that building outside is a stupid idea, mainly because mortars are stupid, see what I suggested earlier
Mortars are not a problem for any experienced player. I don't remember the last time I let mortars actually damage something. By a combination of skill and luck I always have a sniper rifle ready. If I don't have a sniper rifle, I can outmaneuver them with survival rifle.
Well I mean, in earlier stages of the game. As time goes on I find that the game gets easier rather than harder, the only raids/sieges I ever worry about are the ones in the first half year. There's just not much you can do when a siege rolls by, you have 4 colonists, 2 guns and they have 12 people and a mortar. The only reasons I refuse to build outside are because of this, and the fact there's no counter to drop pods right in the center of your base.
Even if they're not an issue for experienced players, I'd still like to see them changed to direct fire so they can also be used against mountain bases.
Mountain bases need more reliable counters, and the reasons people use mountain bases need to be fixed. Honestly, the way I think it should work, is that mountain bases should be straight up better. But on the other hand, mountain bases have more counters that are harder to respond against. I don't mean this bug bullshit, but I mean something like a sapper siege, or maybe some more stealth-oriented raids that focus on disabling your defenses rather than walking into a meat grinder, which then gets followed up by a proper raid.
But as I said, mountain bases would see far less use if there were some direct counters to the bullshit that you have to deal with outside. When can we upgrade our roofing to prevent drop pods, and take a few mortar hits? Also why do 4 people in a wooden hut get 10-20 man raids, I don't see how this makes sense.
Look at Dwarf Fortress again, above ground forts are completely viable in that game, because you're not screwing yourself over by doing it. It does make the game a bit harder, sure. But construction times are also much faster because you don't need to waste time mining. Hell you even get underground farms right off the bat.
EDIT: Reading what the dude said above, there are definitely some things about mountains that do need to be removed. Killboxes especially, maybe give raiders some sort of threat calculation while pathing, so when they try to go through a killbox, instead they'll be thinking "HEY THAT'S LITERALLY SUICIDE.", and change their strategy to sapper, or attempt to blow the killbox to high hell. Personally I use Combat Realism so killboxes aren't needed, but they need to be removed in vanilla.
Honestly, the problem is the raiders. They don't act like raiders. They only care about destroying your base.
The raiders should show up and issue a demand for goods ('protection' money). If you accept, your pawns haul the demanded goods to a spot they pick and the raiders then haul it off the map. If you decline the offer, they will either attack, go away, or go away and come back with a much larger group.
Currently, combat events, without being extremely skilled with micro control combat or building a kill box will result in you loosing your base. Every time because of the number increases on the attackers going up all the freaking time. I don't find microing snipers by pausing and moving them over and over again isn't fun. The alternative is the kill box... which also isn't very fun, but is allot less tedious to set up than microing my fighters all the freaking time because of the constant attacks.
The choice of giving up resources or possibly being attacked would make the game a bit less tedius and more immersive and interesting.
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 10, 2016, 08:47:54 PM
Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms.
The difference between fortresses in real life and fortresses in Rimworld is that you couldn't feed yourself from inside your fortress in real life, which changes the whole dynamic between attackers and defenders. The ability to make a nigh-unbeatable killzone is less problematic when a sufficiently well-supplied enemy can force you to choose between leaving it or starving to death.
At present, the enemy comes in great enough numbers that if you don't have a big defensive advantage they'll kill you, so while I like the idea of promoting more open-field engagements the enemy's numbers are currently tilted toward "killbox or lose." Their numbers would need to be adjusted along with any change that makes you leave your killbox.
Quote from: Pax_Empyrean on August 10, 2016, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 10, 2016, 08:47:54 PM
Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms.
The difference between fortresses in real life and fortresses in Rimworld is that you couldn't feed yourself from inside your fortress in real life, which changes the whole dynamic between attackers and defenders. The ability to make a nigh-unbeatable killzone is less problematic when a sufficiently well-supplied enemy can force you to choose between leaving it or starving to death.
At present, the enemy comes in great enough numbers that if you don't have a big defensive advantage they'll kill you, so while I like the idea of promoting more open-field engagements the enemy's numbers are currently tilted toward "killbox or lose." Their numbers would need to be adjusted along with any change that makes you leave your killbox.
Which is, however,why fortresses in real life usdually had food supplies for several months stored within the fortress (and also access to deep wells for water supply), forcing any attackers to spend several months sieging the city.
Compared to RL equivalents of attacks on castles, the attackers in Rimworld usually come in woefully underprepared
Quote from: Pax_Empyrean on August 10, 2016, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 10, 2016, 08:47:54 PM
Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms.
The difference between fortresses in real life and fortresses in Rimworld is that you couldn't feed yourself from inside your fortress in real life, which changes the whole dynamic between attackers and defenders. The ability to make a nigh-unbeatable killzone is less problematic when a sufficiently well-supplied enemy can force you to choose between leaving it or starving to death.
At present, the enemy comes in great enough numbers that if you don't have a big defensive advantage they'll kill you, so while I like the idea of promoting more open-field engagements the enemy's numbers are currently tilted toward "killbox or lose." Their numbers would need to be adjusted along with any change that makes you leave your killbox.
I think a good change to encourage more engagements outside of killboxes would be to make guns more deadly in general. I've used this example several times already, but look at the Combat Realism mod. Guns are very very deadly, it's quite easy to come out on top of a battle where the enemy has numbers, because what matters is hitting them, not having more people with more guns. A single LMG can turn the tide of an unfair battle, through suppression and just getting a lot of shots in on a large group.
Quote from: Reviire on August 11, 2016, 12:27:32 AM
I think a good change to encourage more engagements outside of killboxes would be to make guns more deadly in general. I've used this example several times already, but look at the Combat Realism mod. Guns are very very deadly, it's quite easy to come out on top of a battle where the enemy has numbers, because what matters is hitting them, not having more people with more guns. A single LMG can turn the tide of an unfair battle, through suppression and just getting a lot of shots in on a large group.
What is the point of Melee skill then? Everyone would stick to ranged gunfights. What it does iseffectively cuts entire skill and weapon branch out.
Quote from: Blastoderm on August 11, 2016, 01:51:35 AM
Quote from: Reviire on August 11, 2016, 12:27:32 AM
I think a good change to encourage more engagements outside of killboxes would be to make guns more deadly in general. I've used this example several times already, but look at the Combat Realism mod. Guns are very very deadly, it's quite easy to come out on top of a battle where the enemy has numbers, because what matters is hitting them, not having more people with more guns. A single LMG can turn the tide of an unfair battle, through suppression and just getting a lot of shots in on a large group.
What is the point of Melee skill then? Everyone would stick to ranged gunfights. What it does iseffectively cuts entire skill and weapon branch out.
Combat Realism still has the personal shields implemented ...
so your melee forces can still use the power of their shields to cover the distance between your position and the enemy ranged attack units and wreak havoc amongst them
Quote from: Blastoderm on August 11, 2016, 01:51:35 AM
Quote from: Reviire on August 11, 2016, 12:27:32 AM
I think a good change to encourage more engagements outside of killboxes would be to make guns more deadly in general. I've used this example several times already, but look at the Combat Realism mod. Guns are very very deadly, it's quite easy to come out on top of a battle where the enemy has numbers, because what matters is hitting them, not having more people with more guns. A single LMG can turn the tide of an unfair battle, through suppression and just getting a lot of shots in on a large group.
What is the point of Melee skill then? Everyone would stick to ranged gunfights. What it does iseffectively cuts entire skill and weapon branch out.
As someone else said, use shields. Melee without shields is suicide, vanilla or not.
Mountainbasing is fine.
You don't ask for icesheet starts to be balanced properly with perfect-climate-valley starts, so there's no point in this either.
You only get to mountainbase rarely anyway, unless you pick mountains every time just for that. On the other hand, there are people who always select ice sheets for the challenge. It's fine.
Mountainbases also have the problem that they still need to protect the outside of the base, where the farms are (if no hydroponics) and the energy generators which are all outside.
I know if the sieges targetted my generators, that'd be a freakin killer. Maybe have them do that.
Mountain bases don't bother me in Maia, because there's no way to build bases above ground and every base must have an airlock. But in Rimworld, I don't want to feel that playing outside mountains is a handicap.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 10, 2016, 07:48:15 AM
Also, infestations weren't around back in 2014 I think.
Neither was the Random button for your landing site (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=174.msg140937#msg140937). You always picked where you wanted to land.
One thing that I think might be useful in making mountains less ideal would be to have heavier penalties for darkness. Inside a mountain base, it is dark all the time, unless you build a ton of lights. I think tying some negative occurrences to that darkness would help in pushing people outside. Colonists stubbing their toes, tripping, bruising themselves opening doors or going in or out of bed, that sort of thing.
Quote from: Jorlem on August 11, 2016, 05:41:24 AM
Quote from: Lightzy on August 10, 2016, 07:48:15 AM
Also, infestations weren't around back in 2014 I think.
Neither was the Random button for your landing site (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=174.msg140937#msg140937). You always picked where you wanted to land.
One thing that I think might be useful in making mountains less ideal would be to have heavier penalties for darkness. Inside a mountain base, it is dark all the time, unless you build a ton of lights. I think tying some negative occurrences to that darkness would help in pushing people outside. Colonists stubbing their toes, tripping, bruising themselves opening doors or going in or out of bed, that sort of thing.
You're still going about this the wrong way. The solution isn't to nerf mountains more, there's already the complete bullshit infestations. You're going to completely remove the playstyle. Instead, you need to look at why people go into mountains, one big reason being, killboxes are the only way to survive for any extended period of time.
Quote from: Blastoderm on August 11, 2016, 01:51:35 AM
Quote from: Reviire on August 11, 2016, 12:27:32 AM
I think a good change to encourage more engagements outside of killboxes would be to make guns more deadly in general. I've used this example several times already, but look at the Combat Realism mod. Guns are very very deadly, it's quite easy to come out on top of a battle where the enemy has numbers, because what matters is hitting them, not having more people with more guns. A single LMG can turn the tide of an unfair battle, through suppression and just getting a lot of shots in on a large group.
What is the point of Melee skill then? Everyone would stick to ranged gunfights. What it does iseffectively cuts entire skill and weapon branch out.
If you haven't noticed, not many armies are running around with swords and spears nowadays. Melee combat as a skill is obsolete. Sure, soldiers still have knives and bayonets, but they don't exactly mount bayonet charges on the regular. Hell, the last bayonet charge in the US was in the Korean War.
The US Army doesn't even train with bayonets anymore, and hasn't since 2010.
While melee should totally be part of the game (hell, my survivalist solo pawn uses melee all the time, in knife-fights with raiders), saying it "removes a skill" is hyperbole. Asides from designated melee-ers, themselves used only to take prisoners and to shut down snipers, does anyone actually
use melee? Like ,
really use melee?
Without personal (or defensive shields in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield) shields, equipping a pawn with Melee is effectively a death sentence. They either get shot to death or get stabbed/cut/beaten to death.
Guns (and bows, and other ranged weapons) should be lethal. Melee should be highly situational at best.
That is one thing I love about Combat Realism. When your pawn, or an enemy, runs out of ammo, they automatically pull out a melee weapon if they have one in their inventory. If we could make it so they pulled out the melee weapon as soon as someone came into melee range, I would weep tears of joy.
Slightly offtopic I guess, but the thread went there:
guns are and should be in every way better than melee.
Except there needs to be a material penalty --- ammunition.
Add ammunition needs into the core game, and it'll all balance out.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 11, 2016, 07:16:01 AM
Slightly offtopic I guess, but the thread went there:
guns are and should be in every way better than melee.
Except there needs to be a material penalty --- ammunition.
Add ammunition needs into the core game, and it'll all balance out.
-ahem- Combat Realism -ahem-
Combat Realism also adds needless redundancy and introduces balance downgrades.
The ammo idea however, is sound.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 11, 2016, 08:02:51 AM
Combat Realism also adds needless redundancy and introduces balance downgrades.
The ammo idea however, is sound.
Care to explain? I mean it might be a little redundant.
Quote from: stefanstr on September 27, 2014, 04:49:59 AM
I have found a topic on Reddit recently where Tynan said he didn't want to add embrasures to the game because people were walling themselves in too much already. So I thought I'd start a thread where we could discuss how the game would have to change to entice us to play more open play styles.
Some thoughts:
- currently, the crashed ship parts always forces me out. Maybe we need more lingering dangers? Something that appears on the map and stays there until you deal with it.
- I think that mining is currently too fast. It is so easy to mine deep into the mountain that there is no reason to build outside. Not to mention that it is actually cheaper to have a mountain base. The walls are already there and the smooth stone floor requires no materials.
Muffshit, mining takes way to long for me.
Someone tell Tynan that embrasures would help with encouraging people to build outside, since you'd be able to setup better defended. See dwarf fortress for details
Quote from: Kagemusha12 on August 11, 2016, 12:25:37 AM
Quote from: Pax_Empyrean on August 10, 2016, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 10, 2016, 08:47:54 PM
Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms.
The difference between fortresses in real life and fortresses in Rimworld is that you couldn't feed yourself from inside your fortress in real life, which changes the whole dynamic between attackers and defenders. The ability to make a nigh-unbeatable killzone is less problematic when a sufficiently well-supplied enemy can force you to choose between leaving it or starving to death.
At present, the enemy comes in great enough numbers that if you don't have a big defensive advantage they'll kill you, so while I like the idea of promoting more open-field engagements the enemy's numbers are currently tilted toward "killbox or lose." Their numbers would need to be adjusted along with any change that makes you leave your killbox.
Which is, however,why fortresses in real life usdually had food supplies for several months stored within the fortress (and also access to deep wells for water supply), forcing any attackers to spend several months sieging the city.
Compared to RL equivalents of attacks on castles, the attackers in Rimworld usually come in woefully underprepared
Of course they stored food. And yet, starving them out remained the most common way of taking a fortress. In Rimworld, that's not a viable option.
Quote from: Jorlem on August 11, 2016, 05:41:24 AM
One thing that I think might be useful in making mountains less ideal would be to have heavier penalties for darkness.
We already have a mechanic, we just need to fix it. It's called Cabin Fever. The problem is you can stay underground for 2 months and it will be completely cured if you step outside for a minute.
Another idea: explosive charges. Pirate/mechanoid/outlander raiders would plant HE charges which cause huge damage if not disarmed. Time trigger. If you shoot them, especially with grenades, they would go boom.
Imagine a raid where pirates plant HE charges at your solar panels, and continue with attack. Or they plant charges at walls, go back and guard them.
Quote from: Pax_Empyrean on August 11, 2016, 12:08:18 PM
Quote from: Kagemusha12 on August 11, 2016, 12:25:37 AM
Quote from: Pax_Empyrean on August 10, 2016, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 10, 2016, 08:47:54 PM
Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms.
The difference between fortresses in real life and fortresses in Rimworld is that you couldn't feed yourself from inside your fortress in real life, which changes the whole dynamic between attackers and defenders. The ability to make a nigh-unbeatable killzone is less problematic when a sufficiently well-supplied enemy can force you to choose between leaving it or starving to death.
At present, the enemy comes in great enough numbers that if you don't have a big defensive advantage they'll kill you, so while I like the idea of promoting more open-field engagements the enemy's numbers are currently tilted toward "killbox or lose." Their numbers would need to be adjusted along with any change that makes you leave your killbox.
Which is, however,why fortresses in real life usdually had food supplies for several months stored within the fortress (and also access to deep wells for water supply), forcing any attackers to spend several months sieging the city.
Compared to RL equivalents of attacks on castles, the attackers in Rimworld usually come in woefully underprepared
Of course they stored food. And yet, starving them out remained the most common way of taking a fortress. In Rimworld, that's not a viable option.
Actually there would be a way:
Usually fortresses in Rimworld are depending on energy generation from outside the fortress (especially thermoelectric generators).
So, first concentrating on cutting off the powerlines between those generators and the fortress (and/or destroying the generators themselves) may hurt you very much ... and may even allow traditional sieging, if all power can successfully be cut ... after all power is needed not only for the sun lamps in the greenhouses, but also for the coolers that keep your food frozen ... else it will rot away in a few days, unless you are very well stocvked with vegetables).
Your only way of escaping this would be having enough metal and wood to build and power conventional generators (and shut off all unneeded power supply)
That said:
Maybe something that makes sieges more successful would be an EMP generator that can be built by the siegers.
(and may be powered by a conventional generator, also being built by the siegers)
This device would be function like a solar flare that shuts down all power supplied devices in your fortress (with the exception of the EMP generator itself and its power generator, of course) and would force you to come out and deal with the siegers (or starve to death after a few days, as the cooling devices for the fridges don't work)
Quote from: Reviire on August 11, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
Someone tell Tynan that embrasures would help with encouraging people to build outside, since you'd be able to setup better defended. See dwarf fortress for details
Dwarf Fortress has a lot of nice uses of fortifications, as long as you've got spare dwarves to do the defending. Things like traps are overpowered but require the player to stay underground a lot. Constructions in DF easily become the target of trolls and other large creatures, since they are able to smash through walls.
As it is now with Rimworld, there is a few opponents to any build. But there's a difference between dug in builds and open sky builds.
Dug in builds require power, which can only be found outdoors. There is no underground steam geyser. So the player is already forced to be outdoors a lot.
The problem with making Rimworld into what combat realism wants to add, is that for each new player there is going to be a learning curve. Adding mods into the game is up to Tynan... A lot of mods skew the game's focus. The things that are already part of the game make the game what it is. The mods can positively break the game...
*UPDATE* I realize that mountain bases can use wood for power... but it still requires you to plant outdoors.
*addition* I think that embrasures would be difficult to implement
properly. The combat system would need to be changed in order to make proper embrasures.
Quote from: ToXeye on August 11, 2016, 12:40:08 PM
Dug in builds require power, which can only be found outdoors. There is no underground steam geyser. So the player is already forced to be outdoors a lot.
*Ahem* fueled generators. You can run a medium base ( up to 10 colonists) off 2 fueled generators if it's in forest. Actually anyone can buy wood. You just need to be efficient about your power usage.
In colder biomes, fueled generators double as heaters.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 11, 2016, 12:51:48 PM
Quote from: ToXeye on August 11, 2016, 12:40:08 PM
Dug in builds require power, which can only be found outdoors. There is no underground steam geyser. So the player is already forced to be outdoors a lot.
*Ahem* fueled generators. You can run a medium base ( up to 10 colonists) off 2 fueled generators if it's in forest. Actually anyone can buy wood. You just need to be efficient about your power usage.
In colder biomes, fueled generators double as heaters.
That's pretty cool. There could be some kind of wood smoke coming from generators rendering them volatile to use indoors.
Rimworld isn't a game about raids. There's more stuff going on. At least, there should be.
It's fine that you can plan and build correctly and be mostly imprevious to raids.
It's fine.
There are other problems to deal with.
Also, learn from dwarf fortress ---> AMBUSHES
Then again, it won't work because ambush in rimworld means dead colonists and if you 1-2 dead colonists is game over for most colonies
Ammo is THE reason I won't touch Combat Realism ever again.
Also, guns should be strong but not the only way to win. Now, even 20 skill melee char will die from skillless raider or got crippled by muffalos often. There is no downsides for ranged just like there is no downsides for turtling in mountains.
Don't repeat other devs' design error, when they try to remove some aspect player ofter uses so much it becomes completely unplayable and players still find a workaround.
Force people from mountain and they will start to make their own mountains. Try to encourage open base play, best to start with making it not suicidal option.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 11, 2016, 02:01:20 PM
Rimworld isn't a game about raids. There's more stuff going on. At least, there should be.
It's fine that you can plan and build correctly and be mostly imprevious to raids.
It's fine.
There are other problems to deal with.
Gosh, and how many of those are easier to deal with from inside your subterranean doom fortress? Would that be... all of them where it makes any difference at all? Dwarfing is never a disadvantage.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 11, 2016, 02:01:20 PM
Rimworld isn't a game about raids. There's more stuff going on. At least, there should be.
And yet, raids are pretty much the only thing that can destroy a colony. And the only kind of event that meaningfully scales with difficulty.
Manhunters and infestations are technically not raids, but it's the same kind of challenge.
I'm sure it's been talked to death, but from what I've experienced so far, making mining slower would be a quick way to stem dwarfing a fair bit.
It's rare players will move their base once it's situated, so discouraging early-game dwarfing solves a lot of the issue.
Double the mining resource output, halve the mining speed. The rates can be tweaked, but right now there's little disadvantage in terms of speed with dwarfing vs. building out in the open.
Also there should be a mood hit with being in windowless environments, and adding glass would facilitate a perk to building out in the open.
You can't really expect people to build a nice little town in the middle of a warzone. You live in the sun you wear a hat, you live in the cold you wear a jacket, you live with the knowledge that dudes absolutely ARE coming to kill you then you build an impregnable doomfortress and you stay close to it. I'm having a great time with the game, I enjoy it in it's current state. Unless raids, mechanoid invasions, and manhunter packs are toned down I'm not leaving the doomfortress- it's not that they're too hard it's just that the only logical way to respond to them is to turtle it up.
Digging into a mountain simply makes it easier to cover your sides. I feel like embrasures or even manned gun turrets could allow more open bases because you are able to effectively defend from more angles with less people, so you have less need to force yourself into a corner you dug into a mountain.
Quote from: Franklin on August 11, 2016, 06:29:17 PM
I'm sure it's been talked to death, but from what I've experienced so far, making mining slower would be a quick way to stem dwarfing a fair bit.
It's rare players will move their base once it's situated, so discouraging early-game dwarfing solves a lot of the issue.
Double the mining resource output, halve the mining speed. The rates can be tweaked, but right now there's little disadvantage in terms of speed with dwarfing vs. building out in the open.
Also there should be a mood hit with being in windowless environments, and adding glass would facilitate a perk to building out in the open.
A temporary base outside until a mountain is mined out is easy to setup. Walls go up very quickly. Stop trying to nerf mountains, you're trying to remove a symptom without looking at what's causing it. The entire issue is that building outside is a bloody stupid thing to do, all the threats are designed to be heavy threats to outside bases, while they can't do anything to mountain bases.
For one, raids should scale differently. Give buildings outside a lower market value. There's no need for a huge raid force on a small village outside, but on the other hand, the same things inside a mountain would need that sort of force to do any damage to. Possibly remove time scaling of raiders, or only let it kick in after you reach a certain total building value. Along with that, how about capping raider sizes to say, double your colonists, until you reach a certain threshold. See below.
But if we do that, we'd need something to balance it out. I'm not sure how well it would work, but how about giving the colony some sort of "Defense value". I don't know how it would work exactly, but it could be calculated by trying to calculate a path into your base every few days. The more turrets, doors, walls etc it has to get through, the higher your defense rating. Each sandbag and colonist + equipped weapons would also add to the defense rating. So an open, outside base that you can just walk into would get much lower defense rating compared to a holed up mountain fort.
Also as I said before, I'd still like to see siege mortars changed to direct fire weapons. It would make them worse against outside bases, but they'd be able to shell away at mountain bases, eventually getting through.
I'd like to see some mountain-base specific raids, too. Imagine this, a siege sets itself up outside, gun emplacements, sandbags and all that jazz, and they just sit there while another group goes off to mine into your base, and set explosive charges on walls.
Speaking of which, lets change sappers too. Don't just have them dig through a wall, have them set up explosives on your walls to ruin your day. Sappers are so bad right now.
Quote from: Franklin on August 11, 2016, 06:29:17 PM
I'm sure it's been talked to death, but from what I've experienced so far, making mining slower would be a quick way to stem dwarfing a fair bit.
It's been talked a lot, but a portion of the playerbase likes dwarfing and doesn't acknowledge there is a problem.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 12, 2016, 03:38:58 AM
Quote from: Franklin on August 11, 2016, 06:29:17 PM
I'm sure it's been talked to death, but from what I've experienced so far, making mining slower would be a quick way to stem dwarfing a fair bit.
It's been talked a lot, but a portion of the playerbase likes dwarfing and doesn't acknowledge there is a problem.
There isn't an inherent problem with it. It's a valid playstyle, just as building outside is. The problem is though, building outside is suicide, so you're forced into one playstyle if you don't want the game to ruin you. You don't fix this by removing another playstyle.
You can effectively remove other playstyles by inaction. For example, Quake 2 multiplayer has following weapons: blaster, shotgun, machinegun, super shotgun, chaingun, railgun, grenade launcher, rocket launcher, hyperblaster, BFG10K. Rocket launcher, railgun, chaingun dominate everything else. Good players don't even pick up worse weapons, especially in duels. Shotgun, machinegun might as well not be there. No-brainers are harmful to a game.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 12, 2016, 07:35:38 AM
You can effectively remove other playstyles by inaction. For example, Quake 2 multiplayer has following weapons: blaster, shotgun, machinegun, super shotgun, chaingun, railgun, grenade launcher, rocket launcher, hyperblaster, BFG10K. Rocket launcher, railgun, chaingun dominate everything else. Good players don't even pick up worse weapons, especially in duels. Shotgun, machinegun might as well not be there. No-brainers are harmful to a game.
You can also remove playstyles by action. We want neither of these. All play styles should be encouraged, instead of making one unplayable because you don't like it.
The problem with dwarfing is that balancing events (including raids) around it makes those obstacles overwhelming against anyone who isn't doing it.
I don't think anybody's trying to get people to stop digging in entirely; just add sufficient drawbacks so that it's no longer the obviously best approach to everything.
Quote from: Pax_Empyrean on August 12, 2016, 08:18:37 AM
The problem with dwarfing is that balancing events (including raids) around it makes those obstacles overwhelming against anyone who isn't doing it.
I don't think anybody's trying to get people to stop digging in entirely; just add sufficient drawbacks so that it's no longer the obviously best approach to everything.
That's not true, though. You can add events that are specifically for mountain bases, i.e sappers that could plant explosives on walls. Hell, that'll kill two birds with one stone, it'll make killboxes counterable too. The solution isn't to turn existing events up to 11, trying to throw enough pawns at it to solve the problem.
Add direct fire siege weapons, so raiders can shoot at mountain bases and actually do something.
I'm talking about existing events. Throwing a big enough army that it's dangerous to a killbox will completely steamroll anything that isn't a killbox. Making fallout dangerous to pawns that spend 95% of their time indoors is lethal against any base design that sees the light of day more often.
I'm starting to think that increasing the range of guns will help matters, since if you could cover a wider range of approaches from a single position you'd be able to achieve the concentration of force necessary to deal with attackers without resorting to a killbox. Having a couple of bunkers is a lot more interesting than the assembly-line slaughter approach.
I think that multiple world maps could be a good solution to the issue.
People turtle in because... it works.
I don't expect a simple AI like Rimworld's to be able to squeeze a player out of a well-defended mountain, except by enforcing stuff (cheating), which isn't fun to play through after a while for most of us.
There should be a motivation for players to leave their hideout, and expose themselves : less resources around the crash site, need to find water with the colony growing or raiders poisoning, need to rotate crops, etc.
This in turn could lead to more interesting gameplay : ambushes, territorial wars, moving the whole colony to safer spots and therefore need to tame pack animals, organizing long-distance trecks to arctic or toxic areas containing artifacts or ultra-rare resources needed for the spaceship, discovering ruins or "dungeons", assaulting enemy lookout camps to reduce raid frequency, etc., etc.
Less of the lame events generated by pure randomness, more of the interesting and challenging events generated by the strategic needs to survive!
What about making rooftops useful?
Rooftop turrets, solar panels, maybe even rooftop greenhouses. Glass roofs, too, for a mood boost. Maybe pneumatic tube systems for shuffling goods around, that are far easier to install in a normal roof than when under the mountain. To make drop pods more tolerable for those not turtling, add AA turrets that can shoot them down.
Maybe expand on the personal shield mechanic, and have building sized shields that stop drop pods and mortars from easily breaking through. Additionally, some kind of reinforced wall would be great!
Thought about this too, this is a brilliant idea :)
Also Bunker-Buster Mortars which can destroy Mountain Roofs,
it may take some time, but causes rubble to drop inside the base which damages furniture and cave-ins.
Fair game for everybody, just watch how fast the rats stream out of the burning mountain home :)
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 12, 2016, 02:00:35 PMFair game for everybody, just watch how fast the rats stream out of the burning mountain home :)
Siege raiders never manage to destroy anything (significant) in my games.
Maybe at the very beginning, if a siege happens before any raid.
When the game is advanced enough though (after a handful of raids), my colonists simply deny them the possibility to deploy their mortar + sandbag fortifications 90% of the time.
How exactly will "adding more of the same" change anything ?
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 12, 2016, 07:35:38 AM
You can effectively remove other playstyles by inaction. For example, Quake 2 multiplayer has following weapons: blaster, shotgun, machinegun, super shotgun, chaingun, railgun, grenade launcher, rocket launcher, hyperblaster, BFG10K. Rocket launcher, railgun, chaingun dominate everything else. Good players don't even pick up worse weapons, especially in duels. Shotgun, machinegun might as well not be there. No-brainers are harmful to a game.
Quote from: Reviire on August 12, 2016, 07:42:25 AM
You can also remove playstyles by action. We want neither of these. All play styles should be encouraged, instead of making one unplayable because you don't like it.
Actually we want one of those. But rather than calling it "Nerfing", think "Improving".
Some time ago, we had an huge problem with
(old)AI & killbox. The players were being logically driven to play the game like a tower-defense game, Tynan improved the combat-AI into something more fulfilling. It's harder but we don't feel like massacring stupid lemming anymore.
So what about trying to
find the Aspect that don't feel right and trying to solve those in a way that balance with other ?
ex :
> Open-Village can't exist because Man-hunter Pack force you to build a perimeter wall, what can we do about that ?
> Outside fortress let us grow indoor food too easily, wan can we do about that ?
> Mountain bunker are too easy to feed, what can we do about that ?
> Mountain bunker make enemy mortar irrelevant, what can we do about that ?
> ...etc
For each we'll want a solution that don't NERF but
make all playstyle more equivalent.
(ex) My take on the first one :
> Open-Village can't exist because Man-hunter Pack force you to build a perimeter wallRework entirely how
Manhunterpack work :
- If
manhunter pack didn't homed straight on human settlement and avoided owned-structure (except if at range to hunt), a wall wouldn't be necessary. (doesn't worsen dwarf-playstile since bunker is more logical against Raiders/Faction)
- If
manhunter pack didn't moved in one pack of 100 but in several packs of "just enough to to fight equally", you wouldn't need Cheat/Exploit to survive any attack. (again, no change for other playstyle, you can't bait them into a killbox since they wouldn't be waiting outside of it and they would attack you too fast to retreat)
- If
manhunter pack actually eat the other animals, it would make farms more important & make their movements predictable (to compensate for not having a wall all around. (this one would incite fortress to stockpile more food inside, which is more logical)
I leave you the others, I'm sure any solution will satisfy everybody as long as we work the right way with the same objective.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 12, 2016, 03:32:12 PM
> Mountain bunker make enemy mortar irrelevant, what can we do about that ?
Nothing. I don't think the mortar should be relevant against a mountain base.
Instead I think a the game needs to be able to identify a mountain base and send a similar but different event instead. It just doesn't make sense for Mortars to be able to damage anything within a mountain. Fortunately the game already has weapons that could.
Psychic weapons.
Start with one single target lance, and use the same drop pod method to drop in one lance at a time at preset intervals. After X number of intervals start scaling up how many get dropped.(so two get used at once instead of one, and so on)
Psychic weapons should be expensive tho, so the intervals would probably be long, and should allow some amount of time for the player to react. Then the Seigers would just need appropriate escorts.
Actually we can do something for that : Any room bigger than <X> would have the risk of a cave-in.
This would neatly encourage player to NOT build huge room inside mountain, thereby making indoor farming less free.
Alternatively we could have "Shock-shell" (Trademarked, do not steal) that inflict damage to all around equipment, but cause more damage when hitting a mountain top. (and it can be added along a cave-in)
Spamming Psychic weapon for raider is a bad idea because it would apply to EVERY playstyle and not solve at all the discrepancy between a open-base and an outside one. (and those weapons are supposed to be near mythical).
Also, we have enough people complaining that Raid are getting unbearable, many long for events where the Raider simply stole stuff rather than destroy all (or at least threaten to destroy if we don't pay)
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 12, 2016, 03:32:12 PM
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 12, 2016, 07:35:38 AM
You can effectively remove other playstyles by inaction. For example, Quake 2 multiplayer has following weapons: blaster, shotgun, machinegun, super shotgun, chaingun, railgun, grenade launcher, rocket launcher, hyperblaster, BFG10K. Rocket launcher, railgun, chaingun dominate everything else. Good players don't even pick up worse weapons, especially in duels. Shotgun, machinegun might as well not be there. No-brainers are harmful to a game.
Quote from: Reviire on August 12, 2016, 07:42:25 AM
You can also remove playstyles by action. We want neither of these. All play styles should be encouraged, instead of making one unplayable because you don't like it.
Actually we want one of those. But rather than calling it "Nerfing", think "Improving".
Some time ago, we had an huge problem with (old)AI & killbox. The players were being logically driven to play the game like a tower-defense game, Tynan improved the combat-AI into something more fulfilling. It's harder but we don't feel like massacring stupid lemming anymore.
So what about trying to find the Aspect that don't feel right and trying to solve those in a way that balance with other ?
ex :
> Open-Village can't exist because Man-hunter Pack force you to build a perimeter wall, what can we do about that ?
> Outside fortress let us grow indoor food too easily, wan can we do about that ?
> Mountain bunker are too easy to feed, what can we do about that ?
> Mountain bunker make enemy mortar irrelevant, what can we do about that ?
> ...etc
For each we'll want a solution that don't NERF but make all playstyle more equivalent.
Yes, that is what we want to do. But we don't want to nerf mountains severely because of it. As I have said many times, the issue isn't that mountains are too good. It's that the outside is too bad, it has absolutely no advantages. Granted, some of those advantages shouldn't be given to mountains, namely being so easy to feed.
To the farming question, more land should be needed to feed people. Farming is quick, it's easy. A tiny plot can feed lots of people. One advantage the outside should have is well, lots of space for farming. A small hydroponics bay shouldn't feed so many people. Large farms that take up lots of space should be needed, and in turn, these farms are targets for raiders. Only an extremely late-game base should be able to feed themselves without going outside, and at that point, they deserve it.
To mountains making mortars irrelevant, you need to fix the reason why this is. Mortars are designed for nothing but destroying outside buildings. As I've said multiple times, this could easily be fixed by making mortars direct fire weapons, so they can damage the mountain walls. While at the same time, it will make them weaker against outside bases, making them more viable early on.
Alternatively, as someone else has said, new tactics should be added against mountain bases. If we keep mortars as they are, it's nonsensicle to send a mortar team at it. Something I also said before, sieges against mountain bases should work differently. A siege sets up, but they do this to cover a team of sappers that attempts to mine into your base and set explosives on exposed buildings and walls.
Man-hunter packs should be capped to a few animals, 80 boomrats is just stupid.
Changing AI-tactic against Mountain-base is one thing, but I would rather have them use non-extermination method. Like setting crops/base on fire, or stealing anything they can go away with. (I wish a raider would use EMP on a turret... and STEAL THE TURRET)
Direct-fire Mortar-cannon" would worsen the problem, I don't see why you would think otherwise.
It would basically act as a fixed-rocket launcher with easy ammo and utterly destroy any non-fortress base, making the only way to play would be to build one or several ablative walls perimeters (or game the system by building those just in front of their "cannon", if you can't have a guy to bait their fire). No rework like limited range or small-impact explosion would prevent that.
Then you would have the player building their OWN mortar-cannon. (and be sure that if those made Mechanoid easy to kill, players will cry if we take away this toy latter, that's maybe why Tynan never made easy rocket)
And last unintended consequences I see, you would have to make those "mortar-cannon" be installed in direct sight of a target-base. Something all AIs are utterly bad at... else they'll be hitting any other mountain around.
The fact that players can easily wall off a field and use agriculture in the middle of a fortress is highly unrealistic and harmful to game balance. Mountains need less soil, worse soil, soil depletion, or crops need lower yield (but that would require even higher boost to hydroponic growth speed, so maybe not that one).
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 13, 2016, 05:52:26 AM
Changing AI-tactic against Mountain-base is one thing, but I would rather have them use non-extermination method. Like setting crops/base on fire, or stealing anything they can go away with. (I wish a raider would use EMP on a turret... and STEAL THE TURRET)
Direct-fire Mortar-cannon" would worsen the problem, I don't see why you would think otherwise.
It would basically act as a fixed-rocket launcher with easy ammo and utterly destroy any non-fortress base, making the only way to play would be to build one or several ablative walls perimeters (or game the system by building those just in front of their "cannon", if you can't have a guy to bait their fire). No rework like limited range or small-impact explosion would prevent that.
So how would this be worse than explosives that completely ignore walls and blow up your buildings anyway? I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.
Quote from: ThiIsMe007 on August 12, 2016, 02:09:21 PM
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 12, 2016, 02:00:35 PMFair game for everybody, just watch how fast the rats stream out of the burning mountain home :)
Siege raiders never manage to destroy anything (significant) in my games.
Maybe at the very beginning, if a siege happens before any raid.
When the game is advanced enough though (after a handful of raids), my colonists simply deny them the possibility to deploy their mortar + sandbag fortifications 90% of the time.
How exactly will "adding more of the same" change anything ?
Thanks for ignoring the point of my post .. That a decent Lategame Colony can do that is out of the question.
But think about early/midgame how much harder it would be to get into this lategame if Mortar Attacks actually can
slow down your development and damage your stuff ?
Thats what this thread about, not Kindergarten One-Up-Manship that counters with "when i am grown up i am stronger than your daddy "
*huff*
*exhale*
So direct fire weapons that can destroy your outer perimeter should be used by your lategame enemy, together with
bunker buster mortars that can slowly break through your mountain and mess your inside up. And some EMPs for
your killbox. True Sappers ( Pioneers / Battlefield Engineers ) should be a fortress worst nightmare, they are the guys that make things go boom, not just a dude with a pickaxe.
And the Idea to steal unpowered Turrets is just awesome :)
Also in the same line of thinking Siegers could bring their turrets with them, instead of building mortars first,
the slap some turrets and batteries on the ground, build mortars and a windmill / solar generator ..
And yep Farming is to easy, while the Numbers needed to feed your guys are allready right the space needed for farming should be tweaked ( which is just one number .. the amount of harvested food per plant )
Given that, outside should have more features, one mentioned above was totally ignored :
Quote from: Azathoth on August 12, 2016, 01:12:01 PM
What about making rooftops useful?
Rooftop turrets, solar panels, maybe even rooftop greenhouses. Glass roofs, too, for a mood boost. Maybe pneumatic tube systems for shuffling goods around, that are far easier to install in a normal roof than when under the mountain. To make drop pods more tolerable for those not turtling, add AA turrets that can shoot them down.
Maybe expand on the personal shield mechanic, and have building sized shields that stop drop pods and mortars from easily breaking through. Additionally, some kind of reinforced wall would be great!
Make roofs useful ! Things you just can't do under mountains ..
Personally, I am to dwarven to be kept out of the mountains. Reading Tolkien with 12 years and 10 years of Dwarf Fortress can do that to you, the only way to keep me from digging would be to remove mountains from the game :)
Well, nope.
You're talking about "late-game" colonies, I am telling you that my "early-game" (after 2-4 raids, which easily happen within the first year of existence on the more challenging settings. I cannot decently consider that as "mid-game") colonies routinely repel siege attacks before they even have the opportunity to deploy their mortar.
If they manage to deploy their mortar (10% of the time), it's 1/ because I allowed them to do that, so that I could steal it, or 2/ out of necessity, because my colonists already are busy elsewhere with a raid or a psychic ship.
Once again, what you suggest would change nothing in the bigger picture. It would probably make it even easier on players, since they could capture even more powerful (and expensive) gear earlier on.
The solution of the issue is not how to deny players a way to play/enjoy the game, because you seem to have some kind of Big Bertha complex. There is simply no known artillery that can level mountains or large hills, even less human-deployed light mortars that could destroy fortified mountain bunkers.
The solution is to catch the players once out of their bunker, and for the game to give them motivations and opportunities enough to do so : because their colonists need water, wood and healthy food, their stock needs to graze, or they need to find rare resources outside of their "comfort" zone (and why not other, adjacent maps), etc.
I get your point.
I usually play on randy extreme, because it is the most fun for me, and I am in year three now, without ever getting a siege ..
Thats why I call it midgame content.
And it is not a big bertha complex. I don't want to deny anything to anyone ..
I just thinkt it would alter gameplay in a positive way if there where actual outside threats to mountainhomes.
If the Siegers don't have time to bring their actual threat into play, something with the deployment is wrong and should be fixed too.
Also I also support and proposed more features to lure the colonists out of the hole. Thats always the best incentive.
I understand, and I am glad to see that we can agree in the end.
Rimworld is still in its infancy. I have faith in the developper to eventually make an excellent game out of it, enjoyable for most. It's already good.
If it's not vanilla, I am also confident that mods can help to change a lot for the better. JA2, which is still my favorite game ever, continues to prove it, and I wouldn't mind Rimworld to take more inspiration out of it in the future (turtling in JA2/v1.13 is not the wisest choice and quickly lethal).
EDIT : Yes, I know that both games are not exactly the same genres, but Tynan still seemed to admit some influence.
Yeah, I just had my first Siege in a long time ..
woah, that was underwhelming.
I took them all out, except two who where right next to the border of the map, without any casualties while tanking two triple rocket launchers. Captured one awesome new recruit.
Serously this needs fixing.
You know what would strike a big blow against fortress colonies (underground and above ground) ? Wall maintenance. Walls currently never deteriorate. If you can build Wall of China on your map, it will never need any repairs unless a sapper team breaks through.
Wall deterioration speed would depend on craftsmanship. An awful piece of wall would deteriorate faster than an excellent one. Pre-existing walls on the map would be assumed to be leftovers from great crafters (because everything else had already fallen into dust).
Currently Constructors have little to do in late game colonies because everything is already built. If walls deteriorated, they would constantly have work in a big base.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 15, 2016, 05:35:53 AM
You know what would strike a big blow against fortress colonies (underground and above ground) ? Wall maintenance. Walls currently never deteriorate. If you can build Wall of China on your map, it will never need any repairs unless a sapper team breaks through.
Wall deterioration speed would depend on craftsmanship. An awful piece of wall would deteriorate faster than an excellent one. Pre-existing walls on the map would be assumed to be leftovers from great crafters (because everything else had already fallen into dust).
Currently Constructors have little to do in late game colonies because everything is already built. If walls deteriorated, they would constantly have work in a big base.
I wouldn't mind a very slow deterioration rate, at least for walls that aren't steel or plasteel. They very slowly lose hp, and you need to mark them for repair with a custom designation. It just can't be too fast, otherwise it'd just be a stupid mechanic for any base.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 15, 2016, 05:35:53 AM
You know what would strike a big blow against fortress colonies (underground and above ground) ? Wall maintenance. Walls currently never deteriorate. If you can build Wall of China on your map, it will never need any repairs unless a sapper team breaks through.
Wall deterioration speed would depend on craftsmanship. An awful piece of wall would deteriorate faster than an excellent one. Pre-existing walls on the map would be assumed to be leftovers from great crafters (because everything else had already fallen into dust).
Currently Constructors have little to do in late game colonies because everything is already built. If walls deteriorated, they would constantly have work in a big base.
Unless it's very very slow it's bound to feel similar to the old breakdown system where randomly bits of your base took damage for no reason other than existing. If I recall correctly the majority opinion on that mechanic was annoying and pointless.
Having walls deteriorate would be a blow against bases that aren't naturally wedged into a chokepoint or mountain. Bases out in the open have more than enough disadvantages already.
This has probably been suggested, but I can't be bothered to read 29 pages right now: No more raiders with incendiary mortars.
The real problem with sieges is not that they hit and destroy your base, it's that the fires they create prevent you from doing about it. If a closed room with no exit to the outside is hit by a mortar and catches fire, that room and everything in it is gone. The temperatures mean any pawn going near the room is instantly downed and killed. Firefoam poppers? Odds are they'll be destroyed by the mortar hit and won't help you. Removing fire from the equation would greatly limit the damage done by a single lucky hit but still encourage the player to do something about it sooner rather than later.
Quote from: cultist on August 15, 2016, 10:26:07 AM
This has probably been suggested, but I can't be bothered to read 29 pages right now: No more raiders with incendiary mortars.
The real problem with sieges is not that they hit and destroy your base, it's that the fires they create prevent you from doing about it. If a closed room with no exit to the outside is hit by a mortar and catches fire, that room and everything in it is gone. The temperatures mean any pawn going near the room is instantly downed and killed. Firefoam poppers? Odds are they'll be destroyed by the mortar hit and won't help you. Removing fire from the equation would greatly limit the damage done by a single lucky hit but still encourage the player to do something about it sooner rather than later.
Honestly I'd prefer them using only incendiary mortars. It's a pain when a lucky shot from the raiders with a mortar hits a colonist and he instantly dies(because that's generally how a normal mortar hit goes down in my experience). If it's fire then I at least have a chance to save him, the room being destroyed (if that even happens, fire can quickly be put out. Also more likely with normal mortars, with the instant damage and larger radius) so be it that can be rebuild, losing a colonist to an instant kill is far more annoying.
But regular mortars don't do much against mountainhomes, because overhead mountain and most of their vital stuff will be hiding beneath that overhead mountain. Aside from any fields they might have and any solar farms, but those two are more susceptible to fire than to normal mortars(what's more annoying a grenade or a molotov thrown into your fields?).
Quote from: ThiIsMe007 on August 14, 2016, 03:02:43 PM
I understand, and I am glad to see that we can agree in the end.
Rimworld is still in its infancy. I have faith in the developper to eventually make an excellent game out of it, enjoyable for most. It's already good.
If it's not vanilla, I am also confident that mods can help to change a lot for the better. JA2, which is still my favorite game ever, continues to prove it, and I wouldn't mind Rimworld to take more inspiration out of it in the future (turtling in JA2/v1.13 is not the wisest choice and quickly lethal).
EDIT : Yes, I know that both games are not exactly the same genres, but Tynan still seemed to admit some influence.
I mean, the game's been in development for years, so maybe 'infancy' isn't the word, but yeah, still being developed.
If the takeaway from this thread is anything, it's the issue is a matter of raid balance rather than player methods. Dwarfing is a symptom of an inclining difficulty that can't presently be mitigated by non-dwarfing methods. Solve the inclining difficulty issue, and dwarfing becomes less of a necessity.
Of course, the issue with that may be that players play with the intent of surviving forever, while the inclining difficulty mounts with the intent of ending a player's game before they complete their goal. If the player never attempts to 'complete' their game, then it's a conflict between AI intent and player intent, and maybe even balancing can't fix that.
A simple way that might make people more wary of tunneling would be poison gas pockets or bug caves, and when you mine you have a chance of running into these. They would be at least 10 cells away from the closest exposed face on world generation, so simple mining probably won't make you find these.
Quote from: MeowRailroad on August 15, 2016, 01:35:44 PM
A simple way that might make people more wary of tunneling would be poison gas pockets or bug caves, and when you mine you have a chance of running into these. They would be at least 10 cells away from the closest exposed face on world generation, so simple mining probably won't make you find these.
Bug caves already exist. They can spawn inside any fog covered hollow, including the ancient danger structures. Bonus points if they dig their way out and release the nasty mechanoids without your knowledge.
The problem with sieges is not that they don't have the right type of big guns. The problem, as with sappers, is that the AI does not adequately manage/defend the siege. For starters, the AI tends to target your closest colonist with mortars, which makes it easy to keep it from targeting valuable areas like farms and power plants until you are ready to attack, usually at night when they all fall asleep. Better Mortar targeting, as well as bringing in battery powered turrets to defend at night would make sieges more dangerous. It would still not address the fact that the AI is terrible against hit and run tactics. Sieges should really be done by forces sufficiently large that you are not even tempted to raid them outright.
All that said, making Sieges more effective will likely force dwarfing even more so. Fortunately, with the additional events, sieges are less common than they once were.
The best suggestion, IMHO, is making roofs useful. Allowing constructed roofs to generate power, allow sunlight in, have turrets, or other fun things which are not available in a mountain base is more likely to entice people to build outdoors then trying to come up with a bigger, badder, stick to hit them with. Let's face it, the general rule of thumb is that the more dangerous the world gets, the better off hiding in a plasteel reinforced mountain bunker sounds.
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 15, 2016, 02:02:09 PM
The problem with sieges is not that they don't have the right type of big guns. The problem, as with sappers, is that the AI does not adequately manage/defend the siege. For starters, the AI tends to target your closest colonist with mortars, which makes it easy to keep it from targeting valuable areas like farms and power plants until you are ready to attack, usually at night when they all fall asleep. Better Mortar targeting, as well as bringing in battery powered turrets to defend at night would make sieges more dangerous. It would still not address the fact that the AI is terrible against hit and run tactics. Sieges should really be done by forces sufficiently large that you are not even tempted to raid them outright.
All that said, making Sieges more effective will likely force dwarfing even more so. Fortunately, with the additional events, sieges are less common than they once were.
The best suggestion, IMHO, is making roofs useful. Allowing constructed roofs to generate power, allow sunlight in, have turrets, or other fun things which are not available in a mountain base is more likely to entice people to build outdoors then trying to come up with a bigger, badder, stick to hit them with. Let's face it, the general rule of thumb is that the more dangerous the world gets, the better off hiding in a plasteel reinforced mountain bunker sounds.
roof based solar panels and proper greenhouse roofing, where do I sign up? If I weren't already driven out of hugging mountainsides by those pesky infestations I would happily move out for that.
Also props to this man for thinking of something that makes open colonies better rather than looking for a way to make mountain colonies worse.
I am in favor of all most carrot-based thinking, rather than stick-based.
The problem isn't that dwarfing is too attractive. The problem is that in-the-open colonies aren't attractive enough.
And please, for Tynan's sake, stop trying to discourage fortresses. So long as it's not only a possibility but a absolute certainty that a group of folks over there are going to come try to kill you in the near future, walls and passive defensive structures are going to be necessary. It was only with the advent of social structures where we weren't constantly under threat of a group of people from <somewhere else> coming to kill us and take our stuff that we stopped putting defensive walls around everything.
I *do* support the stick of making mining slower. It feels way, way too fast, especially when it's done by a freaking cat, since A14. I'm in favor of disallowing mining entirely, or making it idiotically slow, without some sort of mining implement. It's always struck me a super weird that a bunch of random crash-survivors just happened to have the tools on hand to cut into solid stone.
If you don't mind one hell of a stick being thrown at mountain bases, these might be of use. At least they aren't strictly anti-fortress/vault.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/294100/discussions/0/360672137535751646/
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 15, 2016, 03:34:32 PM
If you don't mind one hell of a stick being thrown at mountain bases, these might be of use. At least they aren't strictly anti-fortress/vault.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/294100/discussions/0/360672137535751646/
That event sounds like exactly the type of nightmare fuel that would drive people to hide in a plasteel reinforced mountain bunker. Or more likely just mod the damn event and a lot of the mechanoids proposed out of the game, because a lot of the stuff described there would make a bunker not made up to a specific building code as much of a deathtrap as an open colony when faced with that kind of crap.
On another note why do you have such a hatred for mountainhomes? Or is this some strange masochistic challenge you'd like to pull yourself through?
Maybe he is a pointy eared tree hugger.
It is not hate. It is fear.
A little bit of both TBH. And who said they would show up by the hundreds? Crabs should appear in small groups of five at most, and when they do they have no long range protection. Not to mention the plasma pumps being rendered useless by adding vents to the outside. The maw is definitely over the top, keeping in mind how much more damage it could do to an open base, where it can hit from any angle it wants. Locusts could literally be a drill with some form of locomotion and no armor. It can be balanced, as insane as it would seem.
Edit: poor word choice, not literally vents. Coolers or doors are also options, as well as a simple hole in the roof, or just shooting the crabs before/while they do their thing.
Quote from: Reviire on August 13, 2016, 06:13:27 AM
So how would this be worse than explosives that completely ignore walls and blow up your buildings anyway? I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.
It can't be more straightforward, we don't want Rimworld to
favorforce player to build fortress and bunker. Thing is : direct-fire cannon would annihilate any colonies that aren't a bunker or fortress.
1) Any child can imagine the concept of explosive thrown way up to land on an enemy behind a wall.
2) Ignoring perimeter walls is the very reason to build catapult and mortar in the first place.
3) talking in game-design, the goal is to make non-fortress open-colony just as viable (as they resist better indirect-fire).
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 15, 2016, 05:35:53 AM
You know what would strike a big blow against fortress colonies (underground and above ground) ? Wall maintenance.
It was already pointed out but I insist : your idea would achieve the exact opposite.
Mountain wall wouldn't deteriorate, and you would encourage building a single-building fort so rooms share as many wall as possible.
It would literally kill the very idea of "separated building".
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 13, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
So direct fire weapons that can destroy your outer perimeter should be used by your lategame enemy, together with
bunker buster mortars that can slowly break through your mountain and mess your inside up. And some EMPs for
your killbox. True Sappers ( Pioneers / Battlefield Engineers ) should be a fortress worst nightmare, they are the guys that make things go boom, not just a dude with a pickaxe.
Remember : We don't want anti-fortress weapons than are even more efficient against Open-colony.
What we want is for the specific design of "building inside a mountain" and "building self contained fortress" to NOT be "better in all aspect" than building a open-colony.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 13, 2016, 11:22:41 AMAnd the Idea to steal unpowered Turrets is just awesome :)
Thank you.
As said, my personal "top solution" to our problem are :
-
Change the Manhunter-pack event so you aren't FORCED to build a perimeter- Have the Raider steal anything that isn't being actively protected, not just destroying stuff.
- Add cave-in for bunker. (low risk but increase dramatically for any space are wider than 3tiles)
- Add "shock-shell" that cause extreme deterioration to structure and inevitable cave-in if it hit a mountain top.
Quote from: ThiIsMe007 on August 14, 2016, 01:15:44 PM
[...] The solution is to catch the players once out of their bunker, and for the game to give them motivations and opportunities enough to do so : because their colonists need water, wood and healthy food, their stock needs to graze, or they need to find rare resources outside of their "comfort" zone (and why not other, adjacent maps), etc.
I followed your exchange with SpaceDorf, I think something got very wrong in our global argumentation (or wording).
We are supposed to encourage the player to get out MORE and also to not have more difficulty building open-colony.
Yet -to me- you look like you are talking of doing the opposite : encouraging the player to leave fortification as rarely as possible.
(we can't actually have Siege that last for month)
Aside :
QuoteThere is simply no known artillery that can level mountains or large hills, even less human-deployed light mortars that could destroy fortified mountain bunkers.
If we go that way there is also no known Psychic-lance, mechanoid, and we can't build a bunker that resist modern mortar with only ten ~10 persons (and no industrial product like cement or advanced shock-resistant tunnel design), even less a indoor farm.
But you're missing the point, current mortars are literally the same thing you are saying direct fire mortars will be. You're also wrong. Currently, mortars ignore all walls, and will cause heavy damage to an outside base, while doing absolutely nothing to a mountain base.
Direct fire siege weapons on the other hand, would be able to do something against mountain bases eventually. But they would also have reduced effectiveness on open bases, because if you prepare, you can counter them with perimeter walls. Just like an old castle wall being hit by a catapult.
I just don't understand how you can say this is worse, you can't be more wrong. You can't go from highly damaging weapon that ignores all defenses, to direct fire weapon that can be countered, and call it worse.
I've been doing some thinking, and I realized what really gets annoying with open colonies.l, or at least mine
The lack of a way to transfer heat between buildings.
Drop pod attacks, but those are countered by building a 'true' open base, as they'll get stuck in a building, letting you regroup outside.
No maintenance costs for tunneling. Enough said. Just requiring you to reinvest building materials or risk caveins would be plenty IMO.
Trees taking so long to cut down. Enough said.
Nothing for strictly outside bases that can't be brought underground, or close to it anyways.
Solar panel rooftops have been mentioned so I'd like to add an idea of my own: shielded rooftops to protect from solar flares. Probably not possible/plausible with real world physics, but then again neither is the charge rifle(considering how much damage it deals assuming it's non-pressurized plasma, or projectile speed if a laser or electricity)
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 15, 2016, 03:29:33 PM
I *do* support the stick of making mining slower. It feels way, way too fast, especially when it's done by a freaking cat, since A14.
I bet humans in rimworld are called "dwarves" internally.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 15, 2016, 03:29:33 PMI *do* support the stick of making mining slower. It feels way, way too fast, especially when it's done by a freaking cat, since A14. I'm in favor of disallowing mining entirely, or making it idiotically slow, without some sort of mining implement. It's always struck me a super weird that a bunch of random crash-survivors just happened to have the tools on hand to cut into solid stone.
Don't you know they use small survival guns to shoot their way through the stone. The guns are absolutely useless against anything that moves due to their piss poor accuracy, but with the end of the barrel put right against the stone, especially against natural weak spots it can be used to chip away at the stone.
Also that'd be how people would start mining if you made mining really slow or impossible without mining equipment. And you can't really just improve the health of the stone to counter that either, because that would only further enhance it's defensive quality against non-sappper attacks.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 15, 2016, 08:12:17 PM
I've been doing some thinking, and I realized what really gets annoying with open colonies.l, or at least mine
The lack of a way to transfer heat between buildings.
Drop pod attacks, but those are countered by building a 'true' open base, as they'll get stuck in a building, letting you regroup outside.
No maintenance costs for tunneling. Enough said. Just requiring you to reinvest building materials or risk caveins would be plenty IMO.
Trees taking so long to cut down. Enough said.
Nothing for strictly outside bases that can't be brought underground, or close to it anyways.
Solar panel rooftops have been mentioned so I'd like to add an idea of my own: shielded rooftops to protect from solar flares. Probably not possible/plausible with real world physics, but then again neither is the charge rifle(considering how much damage it deals assuming it's non-pressurized plasma, or projectile speed if a laser or electricity)
I'd be for the idea that you can't leave the stone bare without risk of collapses, also how about making overhead mountain require more supports? While keeping the 5 tile radius for immediate collapse, if there is no wall(constructed) within 3 tiles of a tile with overhead mountain it is liable to collapse during a random event or when the overhead mountain is hit by mortar strikes.
Also shielded rooftops would be plausible, not exactly practical with the current stage of our development, but plausible. Then again hiding in a mountain also gives protection against solar flares.
Why not just let raiders attack with poison gas? Heck, even primitives could just start a big fire at the entrance if smoke dangers were added to the game. Make the smoke spread faster onto tiles with a rock layer above them and spread very slowly to tiles with open sky above (average spread speed to roofed areas).
There's a reason ancient people built castles instead of digging big cave complexes.
Well one of the bad things in mountain colonies are Stone Chunks :)
I start running out of outside places to put the chunks and stacks of stoneblocks. :)
I only had one Bulk Trader until now :(
Well I think the biggest difference is in personal playstyle and that makes the discussion very personal and sometimes the wordchoice may be harsh :)
I don't feel attacked by that, and I don't want to attack someone with it either.
That said I read up on Bunker Busters.
The problem is the interesting stuff about WWII Small Calibre Mortars was all in German,
but in the end, even those had a ground penetration of about 4 metres or 12 foot in soil and 40 cms / 1 foot+ in reinforced concrete. Rock is somewhere in the middle.
So I am still in favor that the big mortars should do some indoor damage to mountain bases. Just think of the bunkers and trenches in war movies. They don't get destroyd but shaken like a bad earthquake.
To really destroy or smash into the rock the payload goes into Sizes of 10kt and upwards, I know thats not feasible in Rimworld :) But a 155mm Artillery Grenade in the weightclass of 50kg can shake the ground pretty bad.
and I bet the payload of those grenades will not get smaller in the next 3000 years.
Also an earthquake event that shakes up the mountain base more than an outdoor base would be nice.
Sorry, I am tired and totally lost my point while writing.
What I still want to say, more mechanoids would give the game more weird factor, but I only skimmed the text so I have no real knowledge yet if I like the suggestion or not.
I also want more scary alien animals like the V14 Hive Clusters which are finally no longer just meat farms :)
Quote from: Peng Qi on August 16, 2016, 05:57:53 AM
Why not just let raiders attack with poison gas? Heck, even primitives could just start a big fire at the entrance if smoke dangers were added to the game. Make the smoke spread faster onto tiles with a rock layer above them and spread very slowly to tiles with open sky above (average spread speed to roofed areas).
There's a reason ancient people built castles instead of digging big cave complexes.
That reason being the labor and planning required being much to high. You can throw up a castle much faster than you could dig one out.
How about mortars just make stone chunks fall onto a random tiles with open space, crushing anything below when struck by a mortar shell. Less focused damage, more devastating overall damage.
Also, just throwing this out there: any one of those anti-structure mechs I suggested along with either the spider or the wasp could do marvelously at either suggesting or enforcing open bases, depending on player skill/overconfidence. Especially the crabs, blasting down dummy walls to get at the inner sections.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 16, 2016, 09:08:44 AMAlso, just throwing this out there: any one of those anti-structure mechs I suggested along with either the spider or the wasp could do marvelously at either suggesting or enforcing open bases, depending on player skill/overconfidence. Especially the crabs, blasting down dummy walls to get at the inner sections.
Just throwing it out there enforcing any playstyle whether that is open, mountainhome, compound(open with large perimeter walls) or something else is not the goal of this thread, nor is going from one playstyle being superior to another playstyle being in that position. The goal is to make people be drawn more to open colonies, instead of hiding in their mountainhomes preparing for waves of doom and destruction to descend on their doors(which was and to a certain degree still is a very real thing and a big motivator to move into a plasteel reinforced mountain bunker).
You've made it quite clear to not be a fan of mountainhomes at all, but there are a lot of people who do like it(even for reasons beyond security, it has a totally different look, feel and structure to it than surface construction). I still don't quite understand why you harbor such an adamant desire to see mountainhomes gone, it's like saying all apples should be destroyed just because you don't like apples. So unless you actually want to contribute to balancing that particular playstyle with the others, I think there is very little purpose for you to be here.
I can see how bunkers would be fun for people, and yeah my word choice is never optimal. Let me make this crystal clear: it would only really enforce open playstyle for those who don't know how to counter it, and even then most would try to find a way to counter rather than moving above ground. That is not the purpose of the crabs, just a potential outcome of sub-optimal balancing.
Also, I don't mind mountain bases. My first base started as one until I ran out of mountain. They're cool when done right. Killboxes on the other hand were actually what made me think of the crab and the beetle.
One to flush the colony out, one to outlast it. Both could be balanced by making them either exceptionally weak against targets that shoot back, or only target indoor rooms either containing a colonist or 3+ sentry guns, counting open doors and sandbags as empty space.
And yes I agree all of the mechs I listed are extremely broken on paper. Except maybe the wasp. I never stated or intentionally implied that this would be the only way to encourage open colonies, just that it has the potential of done right.
Edit:
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 16, 2016, 10:19:29 AM
Can someone recommend me a fun surface-building game because Rimworld is clearly not going that route ?
Rimworld definitely can be fun when you build on the surface. It just takes a bit of micromanaging that I seem to excel at in place of a social star above 4.
Can someone recommend me a fun surface-building game because Rimworld is clearly not going that route ?
I think I've mentioned this before but I'll reiterate my thoughts.
1. Allow the building of towers that can shoot over walls. And can only be placed outside.
2. Have the AI calculate less attractive routes into a base, i.e: when an ai-pawn dies it paints the surrounding area with a "no go" zone
3. Decrease the tigger chance of humans moving across simple traps.
4. Allow for windows, which provide mood boosting "natural light" (and vit.D), and with certain types shooting.
4.5. Allow for greenhouses which provide shelter for plants without using energy.
5. Decrease the quantity of base raids.
6. Increase robustness of crops, don't delete them when they are too cold (they're going in the freezer).
7. Make turrets less nerfed but more fallible, i.e. hackable, require maintenance, require oversight.
8. Make pawns less prone to permanent injury (especially to eyes).
9. Render Electricity much harder to harvest, and sustainable sources not immediately accessible
10. Allow for mining down nodes, like mine shafts, rather than have mining across the X&Y of the map which is necessary for steel.
Those are a few ideas I've had, I'm sure there's more that can be done though.
2, 4, 4.5, and 5 would all be awesome, and 4 and 4.5 shouldn't be too difficult to do.
Another quick idea, this one's a carrot: manhunter packs hunt EVERYTHING, not just people, so they'll likely come to you bleeding, wounded, and crippled, making outdoor bases that much easier to pull off.
I think it's odd to argue for more ways to screw playstyle X or Y. In my opinion the game is difficult enough and doesn't need anymore hurdles just to make sure you're playing it right. AI exploits should be fixed, but that's about it.
I started out playing Classic once or twice, but the inevitable 'ramp towards death' gets old real quick. All my most enjoyable games were on Randy Random, and they usually lasted until I got bored with a colony, rather than it being taken out. An ending like this is not a *bad thing*. I had more fun staying alive than I had in a constant and unforgiving struggle. And Randy still offers plenty of struggle.
As for colonies.. I build walled towns and I build mountainhomes. Sometimes a mix. And they all work just fine. It's more about what the map offers me. Hell, town raids aren't all 'get your ducks in a row and wait'. Sometimes it's more tactically sound to let the enemy take the town while you wait for 'em out in the hills. Or going out to snipe a preparing raid. Or do urban warfare if they out-range you. It all works, it's just not all as effortless as putting up a killbox and stifling yawns for the rest of the game. There's versatility if you want it.
The one thing I would seriously consider overhauling is the standard mode of an inevitable death-ramp. It doesn't allow the game to shine. And there need to be more things to do beyond survival in late-game. The spaceship thing has zero appeal to me. It doesn't offer anything fun beyond a way to end the game. There's already another way to end the game and it's usually coming like a freight train. Which is why so many people exploit and go for an overly defensive playstyle.
Hmmm... Ways to improve open bases without hurting bunkers/'mountainhomes'
Here's an idea: improve weapon accuracy, and add hip fire as a thing, about half the warmup and 1/4 the cooldown of current shooting, but half the accuracy, and aimed fire, with slightly longer warmup and cooldown, but much better accuracy. Snipers default to aimed fire, miniguns are an exception and keep current stats, people quickly fire off a hip shot if surprised around a corner up close, etc.
Also I find it to be really immersion breaking.
Do the pirates have cloning technologie ?
Are the tribes descendents from the long lost lemming people ?
Where do all those people come from ?
And why do they constantly try to kill a handfull of people who must have less ressources then they have for themselves.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 16, 2016, 03:56:23 PM
Hmmm... Ways to improve open bases without hurting bunkers/'mountainhomes'
Here's an idea: improve weapon accuracy, and add hip fire as a thing, about half the warmup and 1/4 the cooldown of current shooting, but half the accuracy, and aimed fire, with slightly longer warmup and cooldown, but much better accuracy. Snipers default to aimed fire, miniguns are an exception and keep current stats, people quickly fire off a hip shot if surprised around a corner up close, etc.
Also the Pawns should be able to fire Handguns, Assault Rifles and Shotguns while Moving.
Quote from: Reviire on August 15, 2016, 07:51:13 PM
But you're missing the point, current mortars are literally the same thing you are saying direct fire mortars will be.
[...]
I just don't understand how you can say this is worse, you can't be more wrong. You can't go from highly damaging weapon that ignores all defenses, to direct fire weapon that can be countered, and call it worse.
Let's get facts straight before continuing :- Mountain-bunker are the only one immune to mortar. They would ALSO be immune to Direct-Fire cannon, first because it's unlikely the AI will be intelligent or fast enough to build it in front of your base, then because you have less ablative wall to build, being you know, a bunker.
- Mortar is powerful against outside-base because you've certainly been packing all your building like one castle/fortress (as the game currently encourage you too), OPEN-BASE (separated building) are better because not everything are within a shell radius.
- Requiring a Perimeter wall IS WHAT WE WANT TO AVOID ! We want to be able to win the game without Perimeter wall !
- And then, captured or Player-built direct-fire cannon would finish the job of killing open-base. You would never build a
colonyfortress anymore that would create blind spot for what is basically a "manned bazooka turret".
Note :
A mortar can miss over a SURFACE, that's fire-arc + undershooting + overshooting.
A cannon can only miss over a ARC, that's fire-arc alone, meaning it will hit more easily. I hope you don't need a drawing.
Now let's get our objectives straight :- We want open-base and even separated building to be more interesting. Open mean no perimeter wall.
-
We don't want to be forced to build a perimeter wall, it's a colony-simulator, not a fortress-simulator.
- We want event/weapon/feature that bypass or nullify
conventional defense (ex : wall). So that you have equal odds even if you had NO Perimeter-wall and wasn't behind 3 layers of mountain.
- We don't want to make mountain-bunker useless (let's not act as if there was a risk of that), but we don't want them to be superior to open-base in all aspects as it is the case now.
- We don't want to make fortress useless (again, it's not as if there was a risk), but we want tightly-packed building to have some serious drawback versus open base (like suffering more damage if a shell fell directly in it).
If we can't agree on most of the above, I fear it mean you aren't defending open-base and there is no point to this discussion. Frankly, I hope you aren't one of those guys ready to lie his ass off hoping to have cannons for "his wargame".
Finally,
If the arguments above aren't enough, let's try to describe exactly why we think X would work or fail.
If Direct-fire cannon were to replace mortar :
- It's easy for AI to position them badly in a mountain biome, they might not even be able to hit your base without leveling everything in-between. Not so much in plain where open-base would be.
- Assuming they have direct sight : they are less likely to miss. Mortar easily miss a square surface, overshoot even, but Cannon can only fail due to arc, since clearly you don't want any shell to pass above a wall to land further behind.
- Assuming they somehow missed as easily : they would stay muuuch worse against open-base. Why ? Because within the fire-arc an open-base is 80% targets 20% miss, a tightly-packed base is 40% targets 60% miss, and a bunker is 2% targets (the entrances) and 98% natural protection (if not 100%)
That's all.
Now, do you get why direct-fire cannon is an horrible idea ?
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 16, 2016, 04:20:06 PM
That's all.
Now, do you get why direct-fire cannon is an horrible idea ?
I do get it, but I thought more direct fire weapons where a stupid Idea anyway. One Hundred different guns don't generate depth through mass.
And you forgot Range.
Due to the ballistic flightpath of the Ammunition Artillery always has Range over direct fire.
Plus :A Point which should make both parties happy
Most Artillery Cannons ( well, except mortars ) are also able to fire in line of sight.
So yeah. I still stand by my point, which gets proven right and repeated all the time.
Mortars should generate Damage inside the mountains.
Right now your point is no different from "Let's keep Mortar as they are but let them damage Bunker"
However Direct-Fire cannon is OUT, as said before there's a reason bazooka were made single shot (and limited in range). I'm not against Anti-tank Sniper or single-use guided-missile (someone modded those for anti-mechanoid after I asked) but you need balance mechanic that don't exist (yet?) to prevent a savvy player from abusing them.
Claiming "Cannon are realist" won't work either, we use mortar precisely when it would be too dangerous to be in direct sight (since direct-sight is basically equal to "they can shoot at use with guns"). Yes cannons ALSO include indirect artillery, but I answered Reviire who seem locked on shell never flying above a wall.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 16, 2016, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 16, 2016, 03:56:23 PM
Hmmm... Ways to improve open bases without hurting bunkers/'mountainhomes'
Here's an idea: improve weapon accuracy, and add hip fire as a thing, about half the warmup and 1/4 the cooldown of current shooting, but half the accuracy, and aimed fire, with slightly longer warmup and cooldown, but much better accuracy. Snipers default to aimed fire, miniguns are an exception and keep current stats, people quickly fire off a hip shot if surprised around a corner up close, etc.
Also the Pawns should be able to fire Handguns, Assault Rifles and Shotguns while Moving.
I was literally on my way to edit that in when I saw this. :D
Basically just a toggle mode for careful shooter or trigger happy mode, Ofc stacking with regular trigger happy and careful shooter.
Sometimes I want my sniper to quickly wheel around a corner and blast a guy at point blank, but no he takes his sweet time lining up a headshot then misses and gets decapitated.
Ok that was an example but the point stands. I would get combat realism for this, but ammo management just gives more reason to stay inside and let turrets do the work.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 16, 2016, 04:37:46 PM
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 16, 2016, 04:20:06 PM
That's all.
Now, do you get why direct-fire cannon is an horrible idea ?
I do get it, but I thought more direct fire weapons where a stupid Idea anyway. One Hundred different guns don't generate depth through mass.
And you forgot Range.
Due to the ballistic flightpath of the Ammunition Artillery always has Range over direct fire.
Plus :A Point which should make both parties happy
Most Artillery Cannons ( well, except mortars ) are also able to fire in line of sight.
So yeah. I still stand by my point, which gets proven right and repeated all the time.
Mortars should generate Damage inside the mountains.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about mortars can be used in a direct fire orientation as evident in this video: https://youtu.be/ak_L2cpyGZA?t=65
It actually shows a couple of ways to fire at close range with a mortar.
And yes the mortars should definitely cause damage inside a mountain. It wouldn't be the first time that shockwaves caused by explosions cause a cave-in. It was actually a pretty regular occurrence in the early days of explosive digging, not even per say causing the cave in close to the blast location.
Quote from: Reviire on August 16, 2016, 09:06:35 AMThat reason being the labor and planning required being much to high. You can throw up a castle much faster than you could dig one out.
And because caves are extremely easy to siege. Against a castle you need to deal with constant barrage from an elevated position, and your line needs to be extremely long to surround the entire structure. Against a cave you just need to build a big wall in front of it and wait.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 16, 2016, 04:20:06 PM
- We don't want to be forced to build a perimeter wall, it's a colony-simulator, not a fortress-simulator.
Because colonies never had walls?
When you live on the fringe and can get attacked at any time, a wall makes perfect sense.
Or at the very least, semi-walls, half-walls and bunkers
Yeah your new to history and life if you don't know colonies have walls, even old american colonies had walls because of the natives and what not they put wooden walls till they tamed the land. Just like you can dig up ruins colonies, towns, cities walls use to be a staple once man figured out how to farm, another person figured out how to raid after harvest time. From that point on we got walls up, not around the fields but the warehourses, carpenters and smiths showed up to help the farmers in exchange for food. I early early civilazation grain was actually currency they built cities around it and those cities had walls to defend the spoils. Only reason a modern one doesn't is we tamed the places but even then a wild animail attack hits and make shift walls go right up.
I mean hell go to construction sight first thing you will see is a wall to gaurd their materials and tools, pipes and wiring are worth money even today you got put a gaurd and a rent a fence up to protect your goods. There is big diffrence from a wall and a fortress, I do basic wall, its no fortress at all. I build little sand bag pilboxes that early on are vital to fend off attackers mostly out of sand bags I mean open bases do the same thing build mobile defense as they call it, I make multiple disposable spots that I can tear down and move out further if I need the space.
But I seen so many screen shots of mountain fortresses with kill chutes that just makes wonder why you even turn on attackers and don't just play on min difficulty. I mean to me the intense fire fights are part of it, but the cheap wall just keeps me from being flanked easy, like I did before I had the wall done had some melee get lost and show up behind my firing line and force me to turn my back to shoot him and risk spin injury. To me its about the mixed base. I put the hospital, the freezer and a high priority stockpile inside a hill or mountain the rest is outside as long as they can't shell my med supplies and food I am content, losing a chunk of the living quarters would suck but I could bounce back.
Yea, if you don't want walls you'll need to just straight up remove enemies. It's only in modern times that walls have been an obsolete structure, because there are just no major threats that can be stopped with them. No one runs at our cities with swords and spears any more, and a wall isn't going to stop a plane or a bomb vest.
I mean, I guess there could be a different AI that's more of a "Village simulator". Something that sends much smaller raids that do not scale with time, since it's kinda silly when an 80 man siege drops in on your tiny little camp.
But back to the main point, we still need more incentives to build outside, and a pretty good one would be nerfing mortars, because you cannot counter them directly. Even endgame raid bullshit can be countered, even if with killboxes.
Quote from: Reviire on August 16, 2016, 07:45:43 PMIt's only in modern times that walls have been an obsolete structure, because there are just no major threats that can be stopped with them. No one runs at our cities with swords and spears any more, and a wall isn't going to stop a plane or a bomb vest.
My fellow Soldiers and I are deeply grateful you're not in charge of planning the layouts of our COPs and FOBs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Walls are most decidedly
NOT an obsolete defensive structure. They're not used in our cities and towns because there is no reasonable expectation that we're going to be assaulted by an external force, and that is the sole reason. In any part of the world where there is active conflict, you can bet your ass that walls are absolutely everywhere.
If we're talking more downsides to perimeter walls I have a few more sticks.
If not, then I have some carrots: embrasures. We can build crappy makeshift ones with two walls and a sandbag, just give us the real thing.
Deploy able barricades. Those concrete barricades you see at riots and such? I want some of those to quickly move around, preferably with drafted colonists as well. Also, prioritizing repairs while drafted should be a thing. Maybe restricted to combat engineer job?
Pawns being able to throw grenades farther. Far enough to cross a killbox and land squarely on a turret farther. No? Ok, then pawns with rocket weapons in their group to think 'hey that's a lot of turrets. Bob, do your thing.'
Basically, AIs that don't blindly rush turrets and run through suppressive fire one by one. And then turrets could be buffed.
It's been said dozens of times, more roofing types.
And a stick or two:
Make turrets radiate heat when firing.
A quake bomb objective for raids. Get in, plant bomb, get out, pull the pin, stand back. Bomb can be defused, but you need to hurry. Bomb is placed in a high value area, like a stockpile or warehouse. The damage is based on space to spread in. Meaning it'll flatten a building, or clear an entire small (100 or so tiles) bunker if not built properly.
Wait, why would we want walls to have downsides?
If we want walls to have downsides, all you have to do is differentiate between a structure wall and a defensive wall. A defensive wall should take massively more time to construct. A structure wall should be incredibly easy to punch through. I mean, if I had a pick or crowbar all on my own I could probably smash an average brick wall pretty quickly.
The reason walls are somewhat useless as a defense today is artillery. So just make more raids bring mortars too?
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 16, 2016, 09:01:36 PM
A quake bomb objective for raids. Get in, plant bomb, get out, pull the pin, stand back. Bomb can be defused, but you need to hurry. Bomb is placed in a high value area, like a stockpile or warehouse. The damage is based on space to spread in. Meaning it'll flatten a building, or clear an entire small (100 or so tiles) bunker if not built properly.
..."Placed in a high value area"... Why not take the loot and go? They are in the stockpile, grab the valuables and go, why bother with something like that? It's another thing I really never understood, why the raiders were so hellbent on destroying everything(just look at what their action is before they meet your defenses, 95% of the time it's either melee X or set fire to Y) rather than trying to get to the stockpile and steal all the silver, food, stored weapons and other valuables they can carry.
Quote from: Peng Qi on August 17, 2016, 05:03:11 AMThe reason walls are somewhat useless as a defense today is artillery. So just make more raids bring mortars too?
Well artillery and breaching techniques(using the siege weapons, artillery or just loads of black powder to blow a hole in the walls) were the big downfalls of the walls. Breaching the castle/city/fortress walls was one of the fastest way to end a siege. And one I could see in the game. Simply use the old blasting charges and let sapper raiders make use of them to blow up walls.
Seeing as artillery still tends to do more damage to open colonies(larger targets and not protected by overhead mountain) I would advise against more artillery and instead advise for sappers who will simply breach their way inside instead of walking straight into the colonies defenses(which they currently still seem to have a tendency to do). "Nice killbox you have there. Don't mind me blasting a road around it." This would force the player to deal with the sapper raid by either engaging them outside and preventing them from doing their job, or fighting the raid off inside their base.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 16, 2016, 08:12:18 PM
Quote from: Reviire on August 16, 2016, 07:45:43 PMIt's only in modern times that walls have been an obsolete structure, because there are just no major threats that can be stopped with them. No one runs at our cities with swords and spears any more, and a wall isn't going to stop a plane or a bomb vest.
My fellow Soldiers and I are deeply grateful you're not in charge of planning the layouts of our COPs and FOBs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Walls are most decidedly NOT an obsolete defensive structure. They're not used in our cities and towns because there is no reasonable expectation that we're going to be assaulted by an external force, and that is the sole reason. In any part of the world where there is active conflict, you can bet your ass that walls are absolutely everywhere.
I didn't know that you setup fortress-esque walls, forgive me, I don't live in a warzone, nor do I work in one.
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 17, 2016, 06:37:35 AM
Seeing as artillery still tends to do more damage to open colonies(larger targets and not protected by overhead mountain) I would advise against more artillery and instead advise for sappers who will simply breach their way inside instead of walking straight into the colonies defenses(which they currently still seem to have a tendency to do). "Nice killbox you have there. Don't mind me blasting a road around it." This would force the player to deal with the sapper raid by either engaging them outside and preventing them from doing their job, or fighting the raid off inside their base.
I still think that flooding caves with poison gas is the answer to tunnel forts.
On the matter of walls.
They are everywhere in Modern Towns.
Yes we tamed the land around our towns. No more roving Bandits and Mercaneries.
The Rich countries got to controlled for this. The poorer countries where this is still a thing they still have walls.
And compare modern housing to the Dark Ages a Stone/Mortar and Concrete are everywhere it takes
( yes here it comes again ) the massive firepower of Artillery or Tanks to take down a NORMAL HOUSE built from stone.
City Warfare is some of the worst things for modern soldiers. Cover, camouflage, choke points and ambush positions are just freaking everywhere and most heavy weapons are screwed because there is no clear line of fire for either direct or indirect fire from the big guns. In WW II Enemy Artillery shot at fortified towns for days, just to make a dent into the defenders morale.
Take a stick, pretend its a gun and go through your hometown.
Modern Towns are "natural" Fortresses all by themselves. And like the people said before me, as soon as there is an actuall threat the walls just spring up. There are reasons why every country has a trained pioneer corps. ( Read Gust Front, the second book of john ringos Posleen War Series. It's a Love Letter to the Pioneer Corps )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally after the essay on walls.
I am all for Carrots to get players out of the mountain.
I do not wan't to deny or belittle anybodies playstyle. Who am I to tell you how to play with the Toy you bought for yourself.
I still stand for my point alone :
The small change to mortars, damage to overhead mountain ceilings, will be a giant game changer.
--- Edit ---
I don't want more Artillery, I want a small difference, which would not effect outdoor colonies at all.
--- End ---
Thats kind of my thing with all suggestions I make to the game. I too like more features. But I believe it is not the solution for discussions like these. These Problems have to be solved by a Scalpel rather than by the Amputating or Transplanting.
I look for the smallest change to features that are allready there which will trigger the biggest effect in gameplay.
--- Edit ----
Poison Gas would of cause be the most effective way to clear out a mountain or large houses, or clusters of pawns in the open .. this begs the question if the geneva conventions are still in effect in 5500 :)
Also .. do you know one of the most popular ways to deliver poison gas into enemy territory ?
--- End ---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To explain my fondness of the big guns to the fellow soldiers here :)
I served as firecontrol soldier in an German Armored Artillery Battalion back in 2000, so yeah with 155mm barrels, 50kg Shell-Weight and about 4-6kg of propelling charge we had the biggest mobile landbased boomsticks around.
( To bad the 203mm is no longer in use )
We also got to shoot at Officers in Bunkers for Training Purposes :)
So on topic of the Mortar Video. I hope you noticed that this is not the way how to correctly use those things :)
Before I edit my last post to death ..
This is an actual MOAR MORTARS suggestion :
Go more IRL with the Payload. The Barrel is not important, but the shells are.
So there should be only one buildable Mortar, but different kinds of shells.
To count the real ones : Explosive, Cluster, Armor Piercing, Seeking Anti-Tank, Gas( well, since Geneva anyway ), Napalm ( I think Geneva said something about those too ) , Flare , Fog and Camera
Ingame there are
Explosive, Fire, EMP ( Because Future )
What the game needs is one more which would be Concussive.
This would cause the long discussed effect of small cave-ins in Mountains.
So three mortars should give you some damn fine Charlie Foxtrott.
Some EMP Shells for your Turrets,
Fire on your Entrance which would greatly reduce your mobility.
And the icing. Concussion on your head, which makes Rocks Fall ( everybody dies )
Also Mortars should be mobile like turrets now, so the deployment phase is much shorter, there are less ressources to steal.
For added fun, Mortars ( all turrets ) could get a self-destruct option, to further lessen the player loot.
This had to be triggered by a pawn who flicks the switch, so it is not to overpowered and gives a chance to save the pawn, or maybe the Mortar.
Also this switch could be accessed by attacking raiders when they get their grubby little hands on your turret garden.
As final change for the betterment of siegekind. Don't Announce a siege. Make it the same as a Raid. Some Raiders show up,
the hang around to prepare.
Then comes the blue message, droppods detected. Whoooooosh .. they land next to the raiders and suddenly there are
3-6 mortars and a stack of shells ... 20 seconds later the first shell lands on your doorstep.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 17, 2016, 08:40:49 AM
So on topic of the Mortar Video. I hope you noticed that this is not the way how to correctly use those things :)
Yep, I'm quite aware they aren't supposed to flop out of the barrel while flaming.(edit: Or redeploy themselves in their not intended direct fire modus)
On the note of the poison gas, actually poison gas is very dangerous and for tunnel networks pretty slow(unless you've gone right up to the tunnel and pointed a load of fans into it, it's gonna take a while to spread through the tunnels). Unless you deliver it from far away and the wind is just right, there is a very real danger of exposing yourself to the poison as well. A somewhat common occurrence during WW1, one shift of the wind and all that poison gas came right back at them.
A much better approach would be a thermobaric bomb. Which is currently in use flushing taliban warriors/isis warriors out of tunnel networks. The principle the bomb explodes in front of one entrance, creating a cloud of highly flammable substance. This cloud is then ignited, causing a very high amount of heat and gas to be generated very rapidly, which results in a high pressure shockwave. That shockwave travels through the tunnel network potentially cooking anyone inside(depends on how close to that particular entrance they were and causing the usual damage a powerful shockwave does(a lot of internal damage).
Also Geneva has plenty to say about incendiary weapons in general, no use on civilian target, military targets in close vicinity to civilian targets and not on plants unless they hide military combatants or other military targets.
Edit edit: Geneva also frowns upon the use of cluster ammunition.
Yeah, those swiss guys suck the fun out of everything.
Yeah, those bombs are pretty cool. The big ones are classified as Nukes :)
Include it into the suggestion the should pretty much kill the doors of the base.
Problem is, since the Hives came, my base it pretty much designed like a submarine .. so gas and thermo would not do very much to me.
My frontyard is where I would be most vulnarable. Because I prefer to build my energy park combined with hay farm and animal shelter there.
Also with the coolers placed at the front, the gas should not spread very far, if at all, into the base.
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 17, 2016, 09:38:40 AMOn the note of the poison gas, actually poison gas is very dangerous and for tunnel networks pretty slow(unless you've gone right up to the tunnel and pointed a load of fans into it, it's gonna take a while to spread through the tunnels). Unless you deliver it from far away and the wind is just right, there is a very real danger of exposing yourself to the poison as well. A somewhat common occurrence during WW1, one shift of the wind and all that poison gas came right back at them.
A much better approach would be a thermobaric bomb. Which is currently in use flushing taliban warriors/isis warriors out of tunnel networks. The principle the bomb explodes in front of one entrance, creating a cloud of highly flammable substance. This cloud is then ignited, causing a very high amount of heat and gas to be generated very rapidly, which results in a high pressure shockwave. That shockwave travels through the tunnel network potentially cooking anyone inside(depends on how close to that particular entrance they were and causing the usual damage a powerful shockwave does(a lot of internal damage).
The problem with thermobarics here is that they're extremely complicated devices and I suspect would be "overpowered;" i.e. if we represented them realistically it would just instantly kill your entire colony. The nice thing about gas is it gives the player a clear visual indicator that there's danger spreading into their tunnel network and encourages them to quickly respond.
No one's saying we couldn't do both of course. Late-game hostiles could have thermobarics and early-game ones gas. Late-game techs could include blast doors and gas-proof doors too; the former weathering more thermobaric charges before being destroyed and the latter preventing any gas from passing them.
Funnily enough, those thermobaric bombs are exactly like the crabs, except the crabs make anywhere an entry point.l and have to get the plasma ready for a few minutes. Perhaps they can just stick their plasma hose through and fire that instead? That could be neat.
Quote from: Peng Qi on August 17, 2016, 10:34:19 AMThe problem with thermobarics here is that they're extremely complicated devices and I suspect would be "overpowered;" i.e. if we represented them realistically it would just instantly kill your entire colony. The nice thing about gas is it gives the player a clear visual indicator that there's danger spreading into their tunnel network and encourages them to quickly respond.
No one's saying we couldn't do both of course. Late-game hostiles could have thermobarics and early-game ones gas. Late-game techs could include blast doors and gas-proof doors too; the former weathering more thermobaric charges before being destroyed and the latter preventing any gas from passing them.
Without a doubt they'd be overpowered, I just mentioned it in reference to Dorf stating poison gas as being the most effective method of clearing out mountains. Seeing something like that get into the game is not something I would see forward to. That stuff is scary and regularly gets used to purge any somewhat enclosed structure that has an entrance and enemies inside.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 17, 2016, 10:40:57 AM
Funnily enough, those thermobaric bombs are exactly like the crabs, except the crabs make anywhere an entry point.l and have to get the plasma ready for a few minutes. Perhaps they can just stick their plasma hose through and fire that instead? That could be neat.
Quit it with your crabs, we get it you like your crabs, we don't want crabs.(yes I'm talking about the lice)
Anyways as I've said, that was more to disprove a point rather than to actually suggest adding it to the game. I would actually discourage such things to be added to the game. Events and incidents that reasonably can only be countered by preparing beforehand and building/designing structures in a quite specific way(like the current manhunter packs and the ramp up spiral of doom) feel like bullying people into a specific playstyle to me.
Yeah I'd hate to see them added too. I was pointing out the similarity as an argument against adding thermobarics, and probably should have made that clearer. Hindsight 20/20 as always.
Anyone have some more carrots? I have some: actual carrots. Grown in large bunches, produces far less when grown in hydroponics, grow a somewhat quickly.
Make raids less common, smaller, and just make the clever AI he default one. Replace clever tactics event with current 'dumb' tactics, and make 'dumb raids' have 'larger' (similar to now) party sizes.
If the storyteller sees that your turrets aren't overlapping much, she'll go easier on you than if they all had a clear line of sight to a single point and all their ranges were overlapping by like 90%
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 17, 2016, 11:37:00 AM
If the storyteller sees that your turrets aren't overlapping much, she'll go easier on you than if they all had a clear line of sight to a single point and all their ranges were overlapping by like 90%
LOOOOOOL !
If This and the turret count is really high, this should trigger some all-out uber event.
2 Raids and 2 Sieges at once paired with 2 mechanoid ships right in your base !
Announcement should be "Well, you asked for it. "
Yes. I like the way you think. All enemy factions decide they've had enough with you mowing down hundreds of them without mercy, and temporarily ally with each other for an uber raid? Potentially with bomb planting objectives?
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 17, 2016, 11:47:52 AM
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 17, 2016, 11:37:00 AM
If the storyteller sees that your turrets aren't overlapping much, she'll go easier on you than if they all had a clear line of sight to a single point and all their ranges were overlapping by like 90%
LOOOOOOL !
If This and the turret count is really high, this should trigger some all-out uber event.
2 Raids and 2 Sieges at once paired with 2 mechanoid ships right in your base !
Announcement should be "Well, you asked for it. "
I would be all for something like that. favorably with flavor text per storyteller, to really bring the idea that there actually is someone telling a story behind the scenes.
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 17, 2016, 12:24:40 PM
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 17, 2016, 11:47:52 AM
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 17, 2016, 11:37:00 AM
If the storyteller sees that your turrets aren't overlapping much, she'll go easier on you than if they all had a clear line of sight to a single point and all their ranges were overlapping by like 90%
LOOOOOOL !
If This and the turret count is really high, this should trigger some all-out uber event.
2 Raids and 2 Sieges at once paired with 2 mechanoid ships right in your base !
Announcement should be "Well, you asked for it. "
I would be all for something like that. favorably with flavor text per storyteller, to really bring the idea that there actually is someone telling a story behind the scenes.
Cassandra: This is what you get for not playing fair.
Phoebe: nice base you have there. I'd hate to see it burn.
Randy: pause the game and get some popcorn. IT'S TIME FOR A SHOWDOWN!
Sound good?
--- EDIT ---
Damn you NinjaNoob, I guess great minds think alike
--- EDIT ---
You mean like this ?
"Do you want to build a base or a butchers shop ? - Phoebe "
" I was going slow, but you asked for it. Sincerely Cassandra "
" THIS. IS. TUESDAY ! - Randy "
Sorry :P
I've had some idea's but most are sticks. Sorry.
Raiders that will attempt to burn out killboxes with molotovs, grenades, and rockets.
Storyteller starts sending more rockets equipped on higher shooting stat characters when a killbox is detected and does not stop adding more explosives to raids until the killbox is destroyed/crippled.
Sappers sometimes take the path of average resistance. Meaning, they dig towards the middle of the base and avoid the killbox at all costs.
Extremely small and weak thermobaric charges (at least compared to some craziness that they do IRL) that are deployed as a last resort by the storyteller to break a killbox. I absolutely despise this idea, just adding it because it's an idea.
A battering ram melee weapon that wrecks doors and buildings quickly, but deals little damage to softer targets.
And now for some carrots:
A huge mood bonus for being outdoors: 'enjoying nature +50' or something. Applies whenever they're outdoors and wears off after an hour or so.
A smaller mood bonus that applies as long as they are not under mountain roof 'view of nature +10' maybe?
Lastly: make nature not ugly. Long grass shouldn't be so ugly. Shallow and deep water should provide huge beauty effects. Just being outside should give a decent beauty stat.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 17, 2016, 12:58:45 PM
Sorry :P
I've had some idea's but most are sticks. Sorry.
Raiders that will attempt to burn out killboxes with molotovs, grenades, and rockets.
Storyteller starts sending more rockets equipped on higher shooting stat characters
Sappers sometimes take the path of average resistance. Meaning, they dig towards the middle of the base and avoid the killbox at all costs.
A battering ram melee weapon that wrecks doors and buildings quickly, but deals little damage to softer targets.
And now for some carrots:
A smaller mood bonus that applies as long as they are not under mountain roof 'view of nature +10' maybe?
Lastly: make nature not ugly. Long grass shouldn't be so ugly. Shallow and deep water should provide huge beauty effects. Just being outside should give a decent beauty stat.
Those are some yummie carrots.
I allready suggested somewhere else that the Pawns should have thoughts about the weather in general.
Hate Rain, Love Rain, Afraid of Thunder, Does not Like outsides
And those outdoor thoughts are the main reason why my yard is a flower plantation :)
The battering ram and more rockets are perfect sticks. Small change, Huge Impact.
I would also propose that the Large Ordinance Guys go for doors or exposed turrets.
Same goes for Snipers who easily outrange everything.
What would also make for better attacks would be if the attackers moved in formation.
Especially high tech enemies should be trained.
I know this would be a huge A.I workout. which could be eased by the implementation of some chain of command
( guy who is center of the formation ) and specialist behaviors ( I will not throw grenades at my own melee troops )
"Do you wanna have a bad time?" - Sans.
Here's a good idea how about traders come by more frequently and with more stuff, if you don't welcome them with 50 fully autonomous guns aimed at their faces?
Late to the party, this thread go fast.
Quote from: TrashMan on August 16, 2016, 05:57:34 PM
Because colonies never had walls?
When you live on the fringe and can get attacked at any time, a wall makes perfect sense.
Or at the very least, semi-walls, half-walls and bunkers
Quote from: Zalzany on August 16, 2016, 06:45:22 PM
Yeah your new to history and life if you don't know colonies have walls, even old american colonies had walls because of the natives and what not they put wooden walls till they tamed the land.
Quote from: Reviire on August 16, 2016, 07:45:43 PM
Yea, if you don't want walls you'll need to just straight up remove enemies. It's only in modern times that walls have been an obsolete structure, because there are just no major threats that can be stopped with them.
I noticed past tense in all of your posts, that's because
Defensive Wall belong to the past and they
weren't common for village or anything not a Military base or OLD gigantic city. "Fort Alamo" was a military base, old western town weren't, notice the lack of walls despite very common brigands and natives.
If American Redneck town were to defend themselves against para-military group, they wouldn't build up wall perimeter, they would fire from within the village and relocate if a mortar was used.
The same way the protection against Packs of Predator were not walls (and barely fence) it was shooting the damn things until they go extinct or fear for their life.
Most the reasons that made defensive wall useful before disappeared with gunpowder and the few reasons left only exist because Rimworld's gameplay & events enforce it : making strong walls ridiculously easy to build. (
the post of Peng Qi was constructive on the matter)
Wire-fence would be more logical. But unless we nerf mountain-bunker and farm-fortress we would only be killing open-colony even more.
That plus obviously the NON-COMBAT advantage we are searching for open-base, like preventing easy indoor farming, or making Raider not fanatically suicidal.
My point stand : We don't want to be FORCED to build perimeter wall, especially since only one or two events
enforce themBuild them if that's your style, but we
need disadvantage that don't make Bunker/Fortress obligatory or even ridiculously better.
If we can agree that perimeter wall shouldn't be
needed or superior, only then can we work on getting colony into the open.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 16, 2016, 08:12:18 PM
Walls are most decidedly NOT an obsolete defensive structure. They're not used in our cities and towns because there is no reasonable expectation that we're going to be assaulted by an external force, and that is the sole reason. In any part of the world where there is active conflict, you can bet your ass that walls are absolutely everywhere.
Defensive Walls
ARE obsolete, unless you equal any obstruction or wire-fence to a wall. The best the army use now is LOT of sand/soil-bag, first meant to prevent sniping and keep civil out, not resist direct-artillery like some person here would like.
The modern warfare paradigm is simple : Shoot First, if you let a enemy reach you with artillery you have already failed (and the same walls will be your tomb)
When was the last time you were overseas in a hostile area, just curious?
Because it's not been that long for me, and I'm just gonna say this: You're wrong. Our COPs and FOBs are surrounded by walls easily capable of withstanding any direct-fire weapon system the enemy can field, and anything but a direct hit from an actual mortar or rocket (and even most of those wouldn't actually cause a major breach; Just something we'd have to put extra security on until the Engineers could repair it) For this reason, attempts to assault the bases are exceedingly rare. Rockets and mortars are used to try to inflict damage and injury to targets inside the walls, and direct fire attacks are primarily targeted ambushes on patrols and civilian targets outside of those walls. Further, the insides of the bases are criss-crossed with walls to limit the damage of indirect fire weaponry.
Old western towns didn't have walls because hostile attacks weren't actually all that common, your average Western movie notwithstanding. It's similar to how I rarely build walls before the first raid or two; The threat is small enough that just turning out a couple of good shooters are enough to break the raid before it becomes a big threat. Once you're starting to deal with medium to large raiding parties though, you'd better have some
real defenses.
"American Rednecks" would be an insurgency by necessity, if facing against any sort of organized military force. Further, they'd be operating in areas with extensive infrastructure, or they'd be extremely mobile, having temporary camps that could be broken down or abandoned at a moment's notice. I'm sure if you consider a moment, this does NOT sound anything like a Rimworld colony.
Seriously, do some research or go home. I've been to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I stand a pretty good chance of going back overseas in the near future. I'm a former Armor Crewman and a former Artilleryman/Forward Observer, with a lot of time spent at Battalion and Brigade-level Operations Centers. I know what I'm talking about from boots on the ground up to the birds in the sky. While there are certainly people more expert than I am, they're not currently chiming in on this thread.
Also:
Quote from: SpaceDorfRocks Fall ( everybody dies )
I see what you did there...
I'd hate to get caught in the crossfire, but could we break this up before the mods lock the thread and/or ban us all?
Walls are up to the player, let's just leave it at that, shall we?
Have another three carrots: hydroelectric power and bridge/Boardwalk flooring. Boardwalks work as advertised, providing support to structures. Will burn away in fires. Cannot be placed over deep water. Bridges can be placed over deep water, but cannot hold structures. Can still hold up sandbags though.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 17, 2016, 03:59:18 PM
Have another three carrots: hydroelectric power and bridge/Boardwalk flooring. Boardwalks work as advertised, providing support to structures. Will burn away in fires. Cannot be placed over deep water. Bridges can be placed over deep water, but cannot hold structures. Can still hold up sandbags though.
Island fortress? With added bridge self destruct options in case of emergency(if the bridges burn too)... Sounds awesome.
And then you get trapped there and starve. ;D
Yet another carrot:
Concrete barricades that can be installed and uninstalled, alongside being able to prioritize construction/repair work for drafted people.
Provides better cover than a sandbag, is 3 tiles wide, but only has the health of two sandbags.
Maybe just add a right click option to deploy barricades and recieve the placement menu as a faster way to prioritize it?
Bipod/tripod effect: when shooting over sandbags/barricades with a sniper, minigun, LMG, or incendiary/explosive launcher, pawns receive an accuracy buff and maybe an aiming speed buff.
The result? Rise of the combat engies. And the snipers. Or something. Dunno where I was going with that.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 17, 2016, 03:54:00 PM
When was the last time you were overseas in a hostile area, just curious?
Sorry but this is the internet. There's many real & false professional who will both use arguments of authority to make claims that are not factual, unfounded or outside anyone's ability to predict (too many parameters left undefined). So let's both avoid personal attack and try to find something we can agree on.
I think we are simply getting lost in the wording and the inherent subjectivity of game balance, because I don't disagree with most of what you said, yet it doesn't make a defense-wall for colony any more realistic.
Said another way : That Redneck example isn't Rimworld, but Rimworld isn't a simulator for a particular type of US military base either.
Consider this, below is why I consider perimeter walls don't have to be a obligatory playstyle.
- Faction/Raider : They can be dealt with quite efficiently without a P-wall, as rather than having a line-battle you have urban warfare.
- Siege with mortar : their goal in term of gameplay was to force the players to go out attack them. P-wall don't change that and there's no reason to.
-
Manhunter-pack : If they didn't homed right on the colonist like frigging Terminator, a wall wouldn't be needed.- Mechanoid : They are Terminator & heavily equipped, damage is meant to be inevitable, taking them out for now is a mix of Exploit and bait and switch. A perimeter wall slow their approach but can easily make it worse.
- FALLOUT : is not geared toward P-wall but Fortress and Bunker with easy indoor farms.- Starvation : As of Alpha14 growing food isn't very hard, indoor or outdoor don't make much difference.
- Temperature : Because of the above, producing food-indoor all year is more efficient than storing huge quantity.
We all want more flexibility in our playstyle, but right now farm-fortress is forced and bunker are still ridiculously overpowered. So I say : if we change things, the necessity for a p-wall have to go.
Your turn.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 17, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
Concrete barricades that can be installed and uninstalled, alongside being able to prioritize construction/repair work for drafted people.
[...]
The result? Rise of the combat engies. And the snipers. Or something. Dunno where I was going with that.
I think I see what you want to do, giving the ability to move gun-nest easily without a reliance over heavy walls.
But I'm not sure it will favor open-base more than bunker. Still sound nice.
Yeah, the idea was to make mobile defence both possible and reliable. Perhaps an increase in the no-friendly-fire range would help as well?
Another thing that would help drastically: firing lighter weapons like sidearms, PDWs, SMGs, shotguns, and maybe LMGs while moving, with reduced accuracy. Heavier weapons recieve the aforementioned bipod/tripod bonus.
And moving during weapon cool downs. Why is that not a thing? Are they reloading? Then why reload an LMG with (presumeably) a hundred or so bullets ready to fire after just a few shots? I'd buy not being able to move while taking a minigun apart to dump more bullets in, or needing to stop to chamber another bullet in a bolt action properly, but a sidearm? An assault rifle? Grenades? A LONGSWORD? Why do those suffer from self-stun cool downs for little to no real reason?
Perhaps LMGs could recieve benefits of both light and heavy weapons to give them a reason to exist alongside miniguns?
Maybe make it linked to shooting stat? If it's above ten, they can move during light weapon cool downs? Same for melee probably.
Is it true that enemy waves get stronger the more turrets you have? If so, this heavily discourages you from building out in the open. An open base requires defensive bunkers on all sides, but can only bring one side's turrets to bare in any given fight. A killbox base, however, can use all of its turrets in every single fight.
Therefore, an open base would have far more turrets than the killbox base, giving it harder enemy waves, but have far less actual defense.
it is somewhat true.
The size of the attack is defined by the number of pawns, the value of your colony ( yes turrets are valuable ) and age of the colony.
There is a pretty complex algorithm at work which Tynan is pretty secretive about and there are a lot more variables in it than that .. but those 3 are the ones you can guesstimate the best :)
So yeah More Turrets mean more Attackers :)
The turret problem can be solved by using your much more valuable colonists as turrets, with one or two actual turrets on each side to draw fire.
True.
The Alpha15 update has a pretty good carrot in it.
With the new ressource extraction fields, there are certainly places you have to be outside for.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 18, 2016, 08:03:55 AM
True.
The Alpha15 update has a pretty good carrot in it.
With the new ressource extraction fields, there are certainly places you have to be outside for.
resource extraction fields? Like the kind you have in the alpha 13 hardcore sk pack?
I don't know, the changelog was not this specific ..
I read it as a mixture of the M&Co Mining Sonar and a Ressource Extractor.
And since RNG says the good ones are always on the ass end of nowhere its pretty much a given
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 18, 2016, 09:01:22 AM
I don't know, the changelog was not this specific ..
I read it as a mixture of the M&Co Mining Sonar and a Ressource Extractor.
And since RNG says the good ones are always on the ass end of nowhere its pretty much a given
Yup yup, I've read the notes now. If those clusters are infinite(or very large) that's one hell of a carrot, if not then I guess it's not gonna change much.
Well, if you cleaned the map of everything else, even a small amount of plaststeel would be worth fighting for.
But I believe they will be medium to large sized since they are described as endgame content.
And I allready know, that I will build Bunkers around them :)
Just like my Steam Vents
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 17, 2016, 05:58:05 PMYour turn.
Okay.
First I'll start by saying that if you considered my last post a personal attack, you must live in an
exceedingly polite corner of the internet. Second, your insinuation that I'm lying was subtle, but not that subtle; It's irrelevant though, because some very quick research will support my points, whether you accept my expertise or not.
I'm not disagreeing with your aims to encourage more open gameplay. I'm in (obviously) vehement disagreement with the claims you're using to support your argument, that walls are outdated and unrealistic in an era of guns and explosives. Solid fact supports my claim that it simply isn't so.
On to some of your specific points (addressing aggressors, because defensive walls aren't intended to deal with acts of nature)
Raiders: Can be dealt with effectively, but not
efficiently by any definition of the word I understand, without resorting to a perimeter wall. With any attacking force larger than your defensive force, which begins to occur fairly early on, you'll have to micromanage your defenders pretty closely in anything other than British-style firing line. Unless you're going melee heavy, the shorter firing lines of urban combat are going to be a big disadvantage (in Rimworld) for your defenders. Perimeter walls canalize the attackers into places where you can maximize aiming and firing time, without having to move your shooters very much. In real life, it's not quite as much of a problem as aiming time isn't an immutable number, and snap shots aren't as problematic at urban combat ranges, but all the same, perimeter walls dissuade direct assaults.
Mortar sieges are a good counter to perimeter walls, but the problem is the mountain roofs and dwarfing here. Any problem that can be entirely ignored by building a certain way is a pretty strong encouragement to build in that way. If mortars were used a bit more intelligently, to target defensive structures such as perimeter walls and turrets (and killboxes), it'd be a small improvement, but of course, it would only further encourage people to build those structures under mountain cover.
Mechanoids: As they don't directly target the wall, I'm not sure of a scenario where a wall would make this worse. Scythers may close to melee range, but the walls will help direct them to positions that are advantageous to the defenders. The mini-guns will chew through a wall eventually, but in the mean-time, the walls provide strong defense against them, and I haven't seen that the centipedes move fast enough to worry about; They're barely mobile tanks. If they moved faster, and were able to focus fire on (or ram through) walls, they'd be considerably more dangerous to wall-based defenses, though they'd be about equally dangerous to mobile defense strategies, too.
Manhunter packs: I don't know of a way to change them without making them a complete joke, to be honest. The suggestions to have them attack everything so they become more of a general threat like Alphabeavers is good, but it removes the primary danger, which is them catching a colonist in the open. But so long as you're able to get your people into either a perimeter wall or a connected base, they're a nuisance at best.
Interestingly, urban warfare is super effective against them, though, since they often move as a group. You can essentially treat them the same way you would a Thrumbo, having distributed shooters popping out of a door, shooting until they get close, then pulling inside and repairing the door while another shooter pops out and pulls them their way. This is also possible with a closed base with more than one exit, but usually less effective as the base itself is an obstacle your shooters will often have to maneuver around.
For urban combat (or any combat style based on fast, short-ranged engagements) to be viable in the game, I think you'd need to increase the effect of range on accuracy, and shorten aiming times, possibly based on range to target. It'd reduce the effectiveness of melee rushes at firearm-wielding enemies (without shields, at least) but still keep it pretty deadly once they've closed that range. Reduced risk from mad melee charges may be enough to encourage more active combat styles, as well; Once you've got a melee dude in your face, you're pretty well fucked unless you can get a pet or someone to give you room to break away, so it encourages you to take extreme measures to keep melees far away. (plus, seriously, at no point should anyone with functional eyes miss a point blank shot on a downed target; Missing should happen, but not often, when a club-wielding madman is charging at you)
I come bearing more carrots in favor of open base combat.
LMG maximum spread decreased. You know, so it suppresses THEM and not US.
LMG burst increased to 12. More shooty = less stabby.
Minigun maximum spread decreased marginally.
Shotgun: fires 8 buckshot(pellets?) that deal 5 damage each, low spread.
Colonist movement speed increased, weight mechanic from combat realism added in simpler form. Basically make miniguns heavy and light machine guns- well, light.
Add a new gun: the flare gun. Not a conventional flare gun mind you, but more of a flare shotgun. Fires sticky white flares that light up a small area around where they hit, can stick to enemies.
A new trap: the flare trap. Sticks enemy with a flare when tripped.
Riot shields: fits in same spot as personal shield, regenerates at half the speed, light weapons can be fired through it from the inside.
Make EMPs shut down power armor for a few seconds, slowing the user to half speed.
Give tribals more weapons. Maybe crossbows eventually, as a long range high burst medieval tier sniper?
Swap the coding for the smart and dumb AI.
Give raiders an objective so you can choose to fight or appease. You want some wood? Sure, come again next week. You want plasteel? *drafts whole colony*
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 18, 2016, 10:20:23 AM
Well, if you cleaned the map of everything else, even a small amount of plaststeel would be worth fighting for.
But I believe they will be medium to large sized since they are described as endgame content.
And what makes you think they don't spawn under mountains ?
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 18, 2016, 04:34:00 PM
I come bearing more carrots in favor of open base combat.
LMG maximum spread decreased. You know, so it suppresses THEM and not US.
LMG burst increased to 12. More shooty = less stabby.
Minigun maximum spread decreased marginally.
Shotgun: fires 8 buckshot(pellets?) that deal 5 damage each, low spread.
Colonist movement speed increased, weight mechanic from combat realism added in simpler form. Basically make miniguns heavy and light machine guns- well, light.
Add a new gun: the flare gun. Not a conventional flare gun mind you, but more of a flare shotgun. Fires sticky white flares that light up a small area around where they hit, can stick to enemies.
A new trap: the flare trap. Sticks enemy with a flare when tripped.
Riot shields: fits in same spot as personal shield, regenerates at half the speed, light weapons can be fired through it from the inside.
Make EMPs shut down power armor for a few seconds, slowing the user to half speed.
Give tribals more weapons. Maybe crossbows eventually, as a long range high burst medieval tier sniper?
Swap the coding for the smart and dumb AI.
Give raiders an objective so you can choose to fight or appease. You want some wood? Sure, come again next week. You want plasteel? *drafts whole colony*
Sounds good, supported by Tynans choice to reduce friendly fire chance.
The Flame options you suggest are allready in, Incendiary Launchers, Mortars and IEDs.
Also your suggestion sounds alot like white phosphorous.
The EMP Idea is great and could be extended to the sci-fi weapons like the charge rifle or shields
Actually Crossbows are crap compared to Greatbows, there just easier to use ..
What you said about the LMG and Miniguns gave me the idea of different fire modes for the big guns.
Aimed Fire and Suppression Fire.
Aimed Fire consists of smaller Bursts, more Accuracy and longer Aiming time.
Suppression Fire is Long Bursts, absolutely no Accuracy and short Aiming time. ( pulling the trigger and letting the barrel sway from left to right )
Also to make the Tribals stronger,( and satisfy our wall-hating friends here ) bows and pilas like grenades have a ballistic trajectory and should be able to send their missiles over walls.
And talking about firemodes would satisfy alot of the points DariusWolfe made about urban warfare.
If we had the firemodes ( snapshot, burst, aimed ) like X-Com had the tactical use of the colonists would explode.
The best example would be apocalypse from the original series, because it was realtime/paused. I have not played the new ones yet.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 18, 2016, 04:47:47 PM
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 18, 2016, 10:20:23 AM
Well, if you cleaned the map of everything else, even a small amount of plaststeel would be worth fighting for.
But I believe they will be medium to large sized since they are described as endgame content.
And what makes you think they don't spawn under mountains ?
Nothing :)
I even expect them to spawn under mountains .. but they would be way harder to find and reach than outside ones.
What I also expect is for the RNG to be a giant douche and the few ressources I want and need are those located in the worst
possible locations.
-- EDIT --
Oh, but I think the tribe on my planet support our discussion :)
[attachment deleted by admin - too old]
Actually, you're a bloody genius. Flare shotgun incendiary launcher rework? Burns and lights up half the enemy team when you fire it ;D
My point with the flares was to make a launcher focused entirely around support, in this case by providing light to see them clearly, allowing colonists to deal with enemies more easily.
Would help so much with improving nighttime accuracy.
Well, I was actually going to recommend having corporate espionage wars
between feuding neighborhood home-owning family companies last week. This was to be done through installment of surveillance devices on corporate entrances. However, I feel that has been done already by such games as Death Gate and The Granstream Saga.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 18, 2016, 02:21:51 PM
Okay.
First I'll start by saying that if you considered my last post a personal attack, you must live in an exceedingly polite corner of the internet. Second, your insinuation that I'm lying was subtle, but not that subtle; It's irrelevant though, because some very quick research will support my points, whether you accept my expertise or not.
I fear that pointing that out might worsen it ("insinuating" that you could be wrong), but you misunderstood my intent.
I was only reminding you (maybe in a too antagonistic way ?) that on the internet, some person lie, some person DON'T but are not
fully qualified to make general claim into truth. And yet most they'll claim to have enough expertize. I also hinted at the Dunning-Kruger effect. We just can't trust expertize claim
even if I want to because only reader can judge of our (awesome no doubt) rhetoric.
So if it can avoid an outright rejection of what I said before, YES WALL ARE STILL USEFUL MILITARILY SPEAKING *
In very specific military context that are not necessary applicable or good to force within a colony game like Rimworld.
Not that there is much left to say, because I consider you basically got my point about the gameplay. Simply that we have to slalom between what we want and what would actually improve the game.
As far as I'm concerned I don't have more to add for now.
The coming addition of MINING MACHINE is much of a game changer and will certainly derail our current balance ideas, though "mortar causing cave-in", "non human-seeking hunterpack"& "better soil outdoor" stay safe bet for me.
If the new resource zones are infinite, I can see resource wars becoming a thing. Enemy group enters and hijacks your drill or builds their own, you have to uproot them if you want your drill back.
Just reminding people that having a game that STOP, even on a single map, is not a bad thing.
No need to take the whole mining-things as a clue that we "should" colonize the planet or turn the game into a wargame.
Aside, after rethinking about it, the mining-machine will be for late-game, but before that we still need to find a way to not make perimeter-wall an obligation.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 20, 2016, 03:17:10 AM
Just reminding people that having a game that STOP, even on a single map, is not a bad thing.
No need to take the whole mining-things as a clue that we "should" colonize the planet or turn the game into a wargame.
Aside, after rethinking about it, the mining-machine will be for late-game, but before that we still need to find a way to not make perimeter-wall an obligation.
And for the no perimeter wall obligation the manhunter packs need to be changed drastically. https://youtu.be/6vhG9E8o_e0?t=1112 (https://youtu.be/6vhG9E8o_e0?t=1112) This is one of the best examples of why the manhunters need to go if Tynan wants open colonies, like he has always been trying to push people towards.
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 20, 2016, 03:58:51 AMThis is one of the best examples of why the manhunters need to go if Tynan wants open colonies, like he has always been trying to push people towards.
Do you mind sharing the source of this please, unless I missed it on the Reddit AMA ?
I would be interested in reading more about the game design motivations behind Rimworld.
Quote from: ThiIsMe007 on August 20, 2016, 04:16:02 AM
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 20, 2016, 03:58:51 AMThis is one of the best examples of why the manhunters need to go if Tynan wants open colonies, like he has always been trying to push people towards.
Do you mind sharing the source of this please, unless I missed it on the Reddit AMA ?
I would be interested in reading more about the game design motivations behind Rimworld.
As long as I can remember he's been against dwarven strongholds(even back when it literally was the only real way to deal with the waves upon waves of raiders thrown at you) and been trying to promote open colonies, and not walling in. The sieges I remember being implemented for the sole reason of getting people out of their killboxes and fortresses(boy did that backfire, the naturally larger open colonies take the most damage from sieges). Which makes it all the more surprising when he implemented the manhunter packs and basically the only solutions to defend against them was slaughter in a killbox or walling yourself in(two things he previously has always been trying to discourage).
I would go find sources, but digging through years of Tynans posts to find ones that explicitly state his opinion would feel a bit of a waste of time, especially since the ones I remember are pretty old.
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 20, 2016, 05:07:25 AMAs long as I can remember he's been against dwarven strongholds(even back when it literally was the only real way to deal with the waves upon waves of raiders thrown at you) and been trying to promote open colonies, and not walling in. The sieges I remember being implemented for the sole reason of getting people out of their killboxes and fortresses(boy did that backfire, the naturally larger open colonies take the most damage from sieges). Which makes it all the more surprising when he implemented the manhunter packs and basically the only solutions to defend against them was slaughter in a killbox or walling yourself in(two things he previously has always been trying to discourage).
I would go find sources, but digging through years of Tynans posts to find ones that explicitly state his opinion would feel a bit of a waste of time, especially since the ones I remember are pretty old.
No worries about the source, and thank you.
I really enjoyed reading through the Reddit AMA, and equally enjoyed reading your short recollection.
Yeah, I too would like the hunter pack to act as "meat-beavers" coming from somewhere and eating everything they get hold of ( spawn with lowest hunger value to really push it ) they would not go directly for your colonists, but swarm out over the map,
and if a colonist happens to be the nearest target .. yum.
I think I found a way to encourage more open play styles: decrease the odds of brainshots, decrease the failure rate of surgeries and make good quality treatments more common. With injuries being safer and easier to heal, people will be ever so slightly more willing to risk injuries by using colonists to defend without resorting to a killbox.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 20, 2016, 04:11:06 PMI think I found a way to encourage more open play styles: decrease the odds of brainshots, decrease the failure rate of surgeries and make good quality treatments more common. With injuries being safer and easier to heal, people will be ever so slightly more willing to risk injuries by using colonists to defend without resorting to a killbox.
The problem is that you're literally suggesting that making the game easier will make people more willing to take risks. You're absolutely correct; As someone who plays XCOM on middling difficulty, I get to play with a considerably more aggressive playstyle than those who play on Impossible difficulty. I dare say it's a lot more fun to play my way, but rogue-likes and semi-roguelikes often attract the hardcore players; One might even go so far as to say that they're the core demographic.
The key is to create options without significantly decreasing difficulty. While mountainhome will often be the easiest, safest way to play, having innate benefits to an open colony will help to ensure that those who choose the easier path have some reward other than the satisfaction of playing a higher difficulty mode.
Not drastically mind you, just enough so I don't end up getting a colonist rendered brain dead every fourth battle or so. Basically just enough so the RNG doesn't constantly make life suck no matter the difficulty. Of course the difficulty could be beefed up in other ways to compensate. More organ hits in place of brain hits? At least then I can fix the damage eventually. Brain hits should definitely stay a thing, just not such a common thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an average liver bigger (wider?) than an average brain?
I once saw three brain hits near the end of one colony, and only one had been hit in an organ by anything other than a surgery failure through that entire colony, and only that one organ damaged by gunfire throughout my entire time playing the game. And the guy got brain shot during the same minigun volley. Either the RNG is skewed or I'm very unlucky. Possibly both.
Making it so that attacks enter the map from the direction of the enemy's town on the worldmap would make outdoor defenses more practical compared to backing yourself into a corner so you can deal with anything that appears from anywhere. Maybe throw some noticeably smaller raids from other sides.
Quote from: Pax_Empyrean on August 21, 2016, 02:19:55 AM
Making it so that attacks enter the map from the direction of the enemy's town on the worldmap would make outdoor defenses more practical compared to backing yourself into a corner so you can deal with anything that appears from anywhere. Maybe throw some noticeably smaller raids from other sides.
This could work quite well in conjunction with viewing the map after world generation to figure out which side needs security improved sooner
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 20, 2016, 03:58:51 AM
And for the no perimeter wall obligation the manhunter packs need to be changed drastically. https://youtu.be/6vhG9E8o_e0?t=1112 (https://youtu.be/6vhG9E8o_e0?t=1112) This is one of the best examples of why the manhunters need to go if Tynan wants open colonies, like he has always been trying to push people towards.
That's indeed a superb example.
I feel he was even lucky to get the chance to build an open-base like that.
WHAT IF the boomrat weren't TERMINATOR ? What if they hunter other animal ? What if they even RETREATED when injured ?
A pack of Warg is already extremely dangerous, if you made them avoid turrets, traps (animal sense!) and just kill the fauna you obtain a dangerous enemy that you can't bait but will maim your colonist, make you use valuable medicine, make you lose hunting opportunity, all the while making outside activity impossible.
I will gladly make it a "WHY Manhunter pack need rework" thread with that video if someone else don't see a less clickbait title and want to do it.
Quote from: Pax_Empyrean on August 21, 2016, 02:19:55 AM
Making it so that attacks enter the map from the direction of the enemy's town on the worldmap would make outdoor defenses more practical compared to backing yourself into a corner so you can deal with anything that appears from anywhere. Maybe throw some noticeably smaller raids from other sides.
That's really not a good idea. The whole point of Rimworld is to survives odds, not build defense toward a known "enemy base" (which is also a step back toward killbox) as if you simply guarded a great wall of RimChina. Just consider that's the raiders trying a different direction to win again.
Event with fixed direction would only matter if it made for a interesting gameplay (like huge herd migration ? I'll be making a thread on Windmill too)
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 21, 2016, 06:36:49 AM
That's really not a good idea. The whole point of Rimworld is to survives odds, not build defense toward a known "enemy base" (which is also a step back toward killbox) as if you simply guarded a great wall of RimChina. Just consider that's the raiders trying a different direction to win again.
Aside from "the point is to survive odds" not actually meaning anything, a killbox is what you have to do when the enemy could approach from anywhere. If you know that the hostile tribe is west of you and the pirates come from the east, you can defend yourself in a way that doesn't involve planting your ass in a mountain.
Unless you are using the military definition of killbox (which is simply a zone where post of the shooting-at killing-at is happening) you don't build killbox "anymore" (since that famous AI upgrade that make them dig around).
At best what you mean is "Build defense wall and turret all around" which ISN'T A BAD THING ... if only we weren't forced to have the wall (for Manhunter pack) or fully enclosed fortress (for FALLOUT). Simple raid do not require killbox if you accept minor damage and spend the resources on something else. Not even siege are bothersome (their point WAS to force you out to kill them) but since a mountain-bunker is : fully enclosed, immune to mortar & can be self-sufficient with food, this cause the worst of the imbalance.
Solving that by making the largest bulk of enemy come from fixed direction would only accentuate the "tower defense" and "mindless wave of enemy" problems that were mostly solved.
Solved? They're still throwing mindless waves of enemies at me.
Best way to deal with that is tunneling into the mountains along one edge of the map, so that they always attack me from the one side. If I could tell where most of the attacks were going to come from, I could maintain a good defense without having to dig into the mountain to get it, which would give me more options in how my bases are built without taking unnecessary risks.
"Mostly solved", at least now they act less like suicidal lemming.
Anyway, it would be a downgrade of gameplay if the enemy only came from one direction. We want to solve the current problems, not just... redirect it. Especially since all it would take is 2 different factions attacking you from different direction to be back at square one.
Less dangerous/destructive raiders would be a solution if Bunker and fortress wouldn't stay ridiculously more efficient.
To run the risk of it being said before.
The solution is either the direction or the number of the attackers.
My suggestions are ( and I know some of them include serious effort )
1.) The Storytellers should tailor the attacks even more to the type of your colony. Acknowleding that there are different types of colony which need different kind of treatment. Open colony Types don't need to be besieged for example. Also the choice of weapons for the attackers should not be random, but combined with my second suggestion :
2.) Upgrade the Attackers to be Tactical Units, not Zerglings. This would include moving in formation ( matching walk speed to the slowest ) Target goals with specialized weapons ( Blowing up the wall with rocket launchers and grenades, setting things on fire ) sniping attackers, and using firing lines and overpower tactics. ( shooting at single targets, switching targets to the incoming melee dude/s )
3.) Clear goals for the enemy attackers. "We just wanted to kill a few of them and destroy their stuff." was never a reason for war or attacks. ( I know this allready came up alot, it is still worth repeating. ) Goals are : Capture pawns, Steal resources (
could be resources on the map, I know I have tons of mined steel lying around .. ) And yes. Diplomacy should be a thing.
( maybe sending a unarmed pawn to the leader to discuss terms .. )
4.) Include the mood System more into combat. Make individuals brake away from combat if they reach a certain threshhold. Especially those with low combat skills and/or no passion in them and fitting traits ( nervous, pessimist, paranoid .. )
While other gets boosts ( bloodlust, brawler, trigger happy .. )
5.) Have enemies ruin your day in other ways. Commando Troops/Scouts show up ( announced like visitors ) hang around the map a few hours/days and leave again or flee instantly when you try to attack them. They just scouted your map and may have constructed mines and traps.
Finally : Usually in TripleA games fixes like Combat AI and Performance are done in the last phase of the game when its feature complete. Where most of the strategy games dumb down their AI to make it beatable by humans because they are to competent ( MinMaxed, know everything from the beginning, being just faster in executing perfeft B.O.s ) or cost to much performance.
I don't know how Tynan feels about this part of his games and what his feature goals are so I don't know where its going there. It would be nice to know more about his vision :)
Maybe it's just me, but I don't find that manhunter packs are such a problem that they force me to build either a perimeter wall or dig underground. Usually, I like manhunter packs because with a little micro-managed urban fighting I can acquire a bunch of meat without having to go far from my base.
Agreed, Darth Fool. I don't consider Manhunter packs especially dangerous at all, unless they catch a colonist out away from shelter, then they're freaking awful. As animals are almost always faster than humans, it's very difficult to get someone out to your colonist and get them back to base. The mass numbers of animals make it difficult to slow them down with leg injuries.
But if I can get people inside the fort, or surrounding outbuildings, they're not especially dangerous, as you can usually repair the door fast enough to keep them from busting it down, and they'll give up after a few minutes. If you have only a single door, they're more annoying, as you've got to try to pop out of the door when the animals move away, get off a few shots, then get back inside before they reach you, then repair the door until they go away again. With multiple doors, or people in multiple buildings you can kite them back and forth much more effectively.
Remember that now Manhunter will destroy door if they saw a colonist pass (it was made to prevent hit&hide exploit).
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 22, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
Agreed, Darth Fool. I don't consider Manhunter packs especially dangerous at all, unless they catch a colonist out away from shelter, then they're freaking awful. As animals are almost always faster than humans, it's very difficult to get someone out to your colonist and get them back to base. The mass numbers of animals make it difficult to slow them down with leg injuries.
But if I can get people inside the fort, or surrounding outbuildings, they're not especially dangerous, as you can usually repair the door fast enough to keep them from busting it down, and they'll give up after a few minutes. If you have only a single door, they're more annoying, as you've got to try to pop out of the door when the animals move away, get off a few shots, then get back inside before they reach you, then repair the door until they go away again. With multiple doors, or people in multiple buildings you can kite them back and forth much more effectively.
With one exception: I still hate maneating Boomalopes.
How to encourage open bases in two easy steps:
1: completely remove manhunters or severely reduce their numbers/make them always appear with random non lethal injuries until further notice.
2: reintroduce/un-cripple 'manhunters' in the form of 'flesh eaters' that eat any living organism at all, excluding other flesh eaters.
3: watch as open bases suddenly prosper.
And a few more sticks and carrots.
Air duct: a vent that is placed like a power line. Seriously this would be so freaking helpful for heating multiple small cabins without using campfires or heaters.
Climate control unit: works as both a heater and AC, quite expensive, takes up 2x2 tiles, several times as strong as either tempurature control device.
Add the ratio of walls in contact with both outdoors and indoors as a factor to raids. More indoor/outdoor only walls means higher value modifier. Closer to 1/1 (or something else this is an arbitrary example) the lower the value.
Open colonies should end up fighting slightly more balanced raids because of this.
Make turrets "cheaper" in raid calculations and buff their DPS, range, and health considerably.
Wait wait let me finish, put the pitchforks away for a minute.
And make turrets multiply in value when densely packed. Arbitrary example: 2 turrets placed with a 1 tile gap are worth as much as 10 turrets with 10 tile gaps, 20+ tile gap makes the turret worth 1x it's base value.
The end result of this would be the crippling of any and all killbox strategies with any level of efficiency below the newly buffed open defenses, making killboxes about as efficient as open defense in terms of balance after some proper tweaking.
Literal killboxes are still there for those who want them, and 'kill zones' basically become the new killboxes. except they can be countered by the storyteller properly.
A bunch of raiders are dying from exclusively turret/trap damage? Send a sniper in the cover of darkness to slash their power lines, disarm their traps, and shoot out a turret or two. Or ten.
Perhaps a saboteur raid type that remains hidden from the player until spotted, that will covertly destroy turrets and traps?
When a colonist spots a saboteur the player recieves the threat alert 'a sabotage is in progress. Be sure to check on your defenses.' If you fail to repair the turrets in time, they explode.
Saboteurs should probably not even exist on the map as a visible detectable entity until spotted by a colonist. Just give them a ghillie suit that provides camouflage in the appropriate environment but reduces it otherwise.
Saboteurs are ignored by turrets and traps unless discovered, and will flee after discovery or after disabling 30% to 50% of your turrets and traps.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 22, 2016, 07:31:00 PMRemember that now Manhunter will destroy door if they saw a colonist pass (it was made to prevent hit&hide exploit).
I addressed that. They'll attack it, but if you repair it, they'll give up before the door goes down. Since this update, I've repelled a few manhunter packs from my front door; I lost one door because I'd forgotten about it, but I had a secondary door inside, so I was able to retreat further back, and avoid making the mistake again.
It *might* not be effective for something like rhinos, but if you have a granite outer door, I suspect it'd hold just fine against them, too.
I think maybe having a coordinated strike of grenades / rockets at key points (remember general positions colonists use for cover, and turret placement) and then blowing them up might be a good approach, same with mortars. Surgically striking them with a triple rocket, or something, perhaps with a few riflemen covering, and hoping for the best once they hit.
This would force the colony to fall back, and fight inside, past the first line of defense which is now in embers.
This would be relatively easy imo, just forcing a rocket launcher person to get in cover, fire at the target with a few people covering him, and then launching the assault after the damage is dealt
So basically the infantry based space western equivalent of a drone strike? I like it.
More like standard military doctrin for dealing with a fortified position ?
Lol. How about buffing triple rockets range and giving it a minimum range?
Good suggestions. I'd add that psychic shock/insanity lances could use a nerf. After losing 2 valuable pawns to a triple rocket launcher early in the game, I've bought every psychic lance I can and saved them for pirates with triple rocket launchers... sell the rocket launchers and buy more psychic lances. Too easy, and the cost of not doing it this way is too high.
The more Tynan will force me to the open by adding bad things to the mountain\bunker bases and killboxes the more complex bunkers and killboxes I will design.
Nothing can force me to consider fighting 40 manhunter boomalopes or elephants in the open a viable tactic.
Quote from: Blastoderm on August 23, 2016, 12:30:29 PM
The more Tynan will force me to the open by adding bad things to the mountain\bunker bases and killboxes the more complex bunkers and killboxes I will design.
Nothing can force me to consider fighting 40 manhunter boomalopes or elephants in the open a viable tactic.
FOR ARMOK !
I deal with the Triple launchers with snipers and shields. As soon as he shoots, I scatter. Since the shooter is useless after that and may even cause some friendly fire.
But you are right, the only thing that nearly breached my defenses once were a pack of 80+ Manhunting Boars.
Also I have to admit, I have Embresures and a DF-Like Castle Structure :)
Not a single Turret in use but 4 Snipers, 2 Trigger Happy LMGS, 5 Plaststeel Longswords and 15 Charge Rifles.
My suggestion would be to give Rocket Launchers more than one shot. Maybe with an insane cooldown but still not instant worthless. And yes I can see the Rocket Salvos coming from my castles. But I would not use them.
They defy Maxim 1.
I had 86 manhunter elephants in my last instance.
They walked merrily trough minefields, deadfalls traps, and their losses were minimal; then tey got into a killbox. They died. Only a few stragglers to clean up.
Well that is awesome.
And you get to tame the survivors :)
That is one instance where it would be better for storage not to butcher :D
Better AI can deal with kill boxes.
Have the pawn automatically attack walls that are in it's way rather than moving around them. Thereby eliminating their effectiveness.
As for mountan bases, perhaps some kind of attack that make use of the temperature system. Or maybe some kind of specialised siege. Perhaps both.
Say, a mortar that launches some kind of burrowing (To ignore the overhead mountain protection) Incendniary explosive, thereby raising temperature so much the pawns will get heatstroke with ease.
Perhaps a rule that would trigger them would be 'Home territory is made up of X% overhead mountain', so that open air colonies don't get such a weird and penultimately innefctive attack against them.
Quote from: RoboticManiac on August 23, 2016, 03:48:20 PMBetter AI can deal with kill boxes.
Have the pawn automatically attack walls that are in it's way rather than moving around them. Thereby eliminating their effectiveness.
That's a bit much, I think. The AI only moves around if it's faster to go around. That's reasonable.
Quote from: RoboticManiac on August 23, 2016, 03:48:20 PMAs for mountan bases, perhaps some kind of attack that make use of the temperature system. Or maybe some kind of specialised siege. Perhaps both.
If mortars fired at mountains caused cave-ins that would at least force players out to deal with them. The temperature system isn't complex enough to behave intuitively; more complex thermodynamics would open up more options at the expense of hardware load. I'd probably just as soon leave it simplified.
Quote from: RoboticManiac on August 23, 2016, 03:48:20 PMPerhaps a rule that would trigger them would be 'Home territory is made up of X% overhead mountain', so that open air colonies don't get such a weird and penultimately innefctive attack against them.
That is not what "penultimate" means.
Infestation is really bad news.. I decided not to build inside anymore because of them. Like 20 bugs popping up in the middle of my base? That isn't really able to be set up for that? Super harsh.
If you need more ways to screw with people inside bases,
Magma Leak Incident
I suggest a magma leak incident. A full-blown eruption would be too much, but some magma seeping up through the floor -- briefly -- and spewing tons of ash to make everything dirty may be a funky pain in the ass which doesn't rely on the "lol incident just wrecking your shit" motif. A very low-to-moderate amount of fire inside the base will spice it up but it will need to be a small amount of fire due to how easily the whole base could cook at 400F.
Since incidents don't have to be one-off affairs, for instance how Rain is programmed to appear to help prevent Forest Fires from just clearing the entire map, the magma ash event could be tied to the extant 'distant volcanic eruption' incident. Then it adds some double-whammy without necessarily automatically being overwhelming.
Alternative to the fire -- The dirty spewing ash could be corrosive and hit for some burning damage off the bat, damaging the hit points of colonist/animals/structure/furniture.
The Magma should surface and spew ash at 2-4 points.
Cough cough crabs cough
Seriously though, some kind of airborne weapon negated by ventilation would certainly drive people out.
Especially if it could hurt quickly.
Perhaps as a new addition to sieges:
'Flusher' units: their purpose is to basically pick a door, vent, cooler, or other opening and use it as an embrasure to shoot into the next room with a high powered flamethrower. The flames are fired rapidly over surprisingly long ranges, inflicting massive burn damage and starting fires on impact. Will ONLY target structures.
I like the magma idea, it really fits with the volcano event, it could open small fissures in the ground which would heat up the area around them tremendously :)
*droool* sorry I started fantasizing about magma-forges and pumps and pipes
well the fisure had to be closed somehow, which would lead into some crazy projects :)
Also Ceiling Crushing Mortars was my Idea. Thiefs.
Use humanities time-honored ally, fire and smoke.
Come across a mountain base, build a fire underneath every vent and by the door. Let the smoke really get in there. Better yet, cut off the power, then start the fire!
This is a thread from 2014. This is no longer an issue. Leave it a lone.
Let each person build the kind of colony they want. Of course some will be better than others.
Noone iS FORCING YOU to take mountainous terrain. In fact, the chances are of getting mountainous terrain aren't very high if you random. Experiment. Have fun! Start on icesheets.
As for smoking vents etc, never put coolers on the outside walls. Only in an "area discovered" roofless within the mountain area.
Besides, you got a turret trapfarm on the outside which is the real problem for invaders, not your stupid mountain wall.
Also I hope tynan removes the "sapper" raiders from the game entirely. They fuck up the aesthetics of a mountain base, where you gotta plug it with walls... so ugly it makes me quit that colony
No one is forcing us, but it is a fact that mountainhomes are basically superior in defense while not really having any downsides to balance them. It is no directly an issue, but it would be nice if there were pros and cons for all building styles, not the situation as it is now, where open colonies basically only have things that they are worse in than perimeter walled complexes(and perimeter walled complexes are worse than mountainhomes) and mountainhomes.
And Tynan isn't going to remove sappers, they are about the only thing that do damage to a mountainhome in the current game, it's kind of what they were designed for. Well, mostly for getting around killboxes, but it also works wonders in avoiding the mountainhome killbox/defenses.
The above post sums it up pretty well. I think the main issue with open bases is how easy it is to get injured or killed and how little armor actually helps with that. If I give a guy a Kevlar helmet, a duster, and an armor vest, he still gets 1shot by a decent sniper. Not amazing, decent. The easiest way to fix the problem might just simply be making EPOE vanilla for the most part. Making friendly fire less common, improve the minigun's pathetic accuracy at close range, stuff like that.
Quote from: Alphanoob393 on August 24, 2016, 02:08:25 AM
The above post sums it up pretty well. I think the main issue with open bases is how easy it is to get injured or killed and how little armor actually helps with that. If I give a guy a Kevlar helmet, a duster, and an armor vest, he still gets 1shot by a decent sniper. Not amazing, decent. The easiest way to fix the problem might just simply be making EPOE vanilla for the most part. Making friendly fire less common, improve the minigun's pathetic accuracy at close range, stuff like that.
The minigun actually has a hardcoded miss radius. It doesn't matter how close or far you are, or how good a shooter your guy is. It just sprays bullets at a set area that isn't affected by anything.
DESurgeries would be enough.
Both should be in vanilla :)
Also I did not knew, that the MiniGun was that awesome .. I never expected it to hit the target anyway, since most triggerhappys have awful shooting skills and no passion
Heat protection gear: massive resistance to hot temperatures, but little armor.
Shields. Riot shields, medieval shields, whatever. So long as they can be equipped with a gun.
A constant laser beam weapon that stun locks enemies, must be mounted and manned by a colonist.
More high tech equipment. Plasma weapons maybe?
Smarter AIs. Enough said.
Quote from: Lightzy on August 24, 2016, 12:32:19 AMThis is a thread from 2014. This is no longer an issue. Leave it a lone.
Are you serious? The massive amounts of discussion that the thread is getting THIS YEAR makes this statement ludicrous.
Obviously it's still a problem, and a fairly big one, or else there wouldn't be such spirited discussion going on. Just this
month alone, there are 15 pages of posts.
Maybe you like Mountainhomes. I like them too. But to say that it's not a problem that there is one clearly superior strategy is wrong on so many levels. No one is saying that the game isn't fun, and most of the discussion has been about carrots to bring the colonies out into the open, so it's not like this thread exists to ruin your preferred playstyle (though there have been some seriously strong sticks for Mountainhomes suggested in this thread).
Here's a better thought. If you don't want to bring colonies out into the open, just refrain from participating in the discussion.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 24, 2016, 12:43:10 PM
Quote from: Lightzy on August 24, 2016, 12:32:19 AMThis is a thread from 2014. This is no longer an issue. Leave it a lone.
Are you serious? The massive amounts of discussion that the thread is getting THIS YEAR makes this statement ludicrous.
Obviously it's still a problem, and a fairly big one, or else there wouldn't be such spirited discussion going on. Just this month alone, there are 15 pages of posts.
Maybe you like Mountainhomes. I like them too. But to say that it's not a problem that there is one clearly superior strategy is wrong on so many levels. No one is saying that the game isn't fun, and most of the discussion has been about carrots to bring the colonies out into the open, so it's not like this thread exists to ruin your preferred playstyle (though there have been some seriously strong sticks for Mountainhomes suggested in this thread).
Here's a better thought. If you don't want to bring colonies out into the open, just refrain from participating in the discussion.
I love my mountain home too. Still I want crazy shit too happen, and this is the thread where the crazy suggestions are at home at the moment :)
Quote from: Lightzy on August 24, 2016, 12:32:19 AM
This is a thread from 2014. This is no longer an issue. Leave it a lone.
Let each person build the kind of colony they want. Of course some will be better than others.
Noone iS FORCING YOU to take mountainous terrain. In fact, the chances are of getting mountainous terrain aren't very high if you random. Experiment. Have fun! Start on icesheets.
The topic might be old but the problem simply morphed.
I'll sum you the problems :
- You CAN'T do well without a contiguous wall because of how Manhunter pack work (see this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vhG9E8o_e0&feature=youtu.be&t=1112), and he is a skilled player to get that far in an open-base).
- You are encouraged to have everything indoor and farm all year long (season & Fallout), and it has no disadvantage at all.
- Mountain-bunker being immune to mortar and resistant to manhunter/fallout it's sadomasochism not to build one.
The problem will only be solved once we can build a base outside, even in a mountain biome, and do just as well as a bunker/fortress base.
QuoteAlso I hope tynan removes the "sapper" raiders from the game entirely. They fuck up the aesthetics of a mountain base, where you gotta plug it with walls... so ugly it makes me quit that colony
You are new here aren't you ?
...the sappers were added precisely because without them killbox were too efficient, endless wave of raiders were too easy and everybody built bunker. Raider don't care about the aesthetic of your base, they want to kill you. (and one of the main topic of discussion was making them steal your stuff rather than getting killed)
If your pristine mountain-base can't ever be damaged or threatened you are missing most of the experiences Rimworld can give.
1) I think that video link proves the point that the player did not set up an outside base in a way to deal with manhunter packs. For one, an all wooden building against boomrats? Of course wood is going to burn. Second, he tries to take the manhunter pack directly on, which is not the way to do it. Rather he ought to engage in hit and hide tactics from within buildings by hopping in and out of doors and repairing the door if when it is attacked by reacting pack animals. Many dispersed buildings is actually ideal for this tactic as opposed to a single wall, as the pack tends to split up between different doors. Man hunter packs are non issue.
2) Yep, wholeheartedly agree that in some biomes you need to farm year round which can only be done indoors. But then again, that is the nature of the biome. You do not need to be indoor farming in tropical forests.
3) Resistance to mortar fire is a true benefit to mountain biomes.
I disagree that the problem is solved only if mountain bunkers and open colonies are of indistinguishable benefit in all biomes. I think it ought to be the case that mountain bunkers should be preferable in some biomes, and open colonies in others.
I realize that it is fun to come up with new ways to destroy mountain bases with weapons and events, but I don't see this as a solution.
One can kill off mountain bases easily by just making it 10 times harder to mine out the mountains, but in general this is uninteresting.
To me the real solution must be to have interesting tradeoffs between the two. Useful roofs is one method, but there are, I am sure, others. What I am interested in is hearing other ideas about how to adjust the tradeoffs between interior and exterior bases that do not involve new fangled weapons for the AI or Deus ex Machina events that target the mountains.
I don't know if it is actually possible in the first year / years to harvest and store enough food to make it through a winter.
I assume there is a winter, else indoor farming would be pointless :)
If I calculate with 2 meals per day for every inhabitant ( P³ - pawns,pets&prisoners ) you would need 20 raw food for every pawn for every day of winter plus every day until your new food is grown. With the current grow mechanism this would be 6 about days of grow-season weather for rice
So Winter 15 days + 6 days growing time gives us 21 days at a minimum to bridge. which are 410420 raw food items per P³ at the beginning of winter. Normally I have 5 Pawns by this time and some tamed animals and maybe some leftover prisoners.
410420 x 10 P³'s make a whopping 4100 4200 raw food items by the end of autumn of year one if you want to make it through the winter. More if shit happens ..
--Edit --
In comparison my colony is at the 5th of Fall in year three .. at the moment I have about 20000 units of food, which include 5000 units of hay. I have 32 Pawns, 2 Prisoners and 30 animals of which 12 are Grizzly Bears, 2 Megatheriums and 1 Thrumbo.
I have this much because I had an outbreak of 15 hives and an attack of 90 wargs in the last 10 days.
Also I have an 25x25 tilled soil ( 160% fertility ) indoor farm with 5 Sunlamps and 24h-Growth mod and 3 dedicated hunters who kill everything that doesn't go boom or bites ( bears and wargs )
That makes about 65-70 x 2 = 140 meals per day = 1400 units of food per day x 21 = 29500 units of food stored at the end of fall to survive winter without farming.
So 9000 units of food more to go ..
Before the edit I thought that I could have enough to make through the winter without farming ....
--- EDIT ---
So .. yes have !!FUN!! building your open colony ..
Hey not once I mentioned killboxes or ai 's or how randy puts his .. *bleep* in *bleep*bleep* while *bleeeeeeee....
--- EDIT 2 ---
And by the way, without the extended storage mod, I would have no idea where to put all this crap.
29500 / 75 = 394 tiles of roofed food storage. Climate Controlled if you account for meat and meals.
Yeah .. totally doable :)
--- EDIT 2 ---
@spacedorf, rice isn't exactly efficient outside of the hydroponics(and even then it's only because hydroponic corn doesn't exist). On regular soil and gravel potatoes will yield more food, on rich soil corn does best. Rice is only useful outside of hydroponics because it's the quickest growing crop overall. At least that's been my observations, the lessened degree of dead time(time between plant getting harvest ready and sowing new plant) could be a factor in this.
Speaking about the overcoming the first winter, I usually find it not that big of a deal. I'll usually have enough veggy food stocked to not have to worry about that, and I usually get by with the meat stored and some hunting. As for animal feed, well usually I don't have a zoo to tend to, last game though I got a chicken pack wandering in(which if you get like 2 hens per colonist means meat overproduction), but there's always the helpful raiders who will gladly offer their bodies to be mixed with hay to make kibble(which makes any hay stored last 2.5x as long as you have enough tall pork to mix in). Usually by the time the next growing season comes around I'll have my farms(which are generally centered on some decent rich soil patch) indoors.(because it is just the best way to go, no real way around it)
That's my two cent on that stuff
We, or at least I believe I don't stand alone in this, don't want indistinguishable benefits between mountainhome, perimeter complex and open colony. We want each to feel differently have their own pro's and cons. But currently the mountainhome trumps all, with it's superior defensive position(attacks are far more predictable where they'll go when only the front door is attackable without sappers and it's mortar fire resistance) while trading in very little in return(maybe less ideal in the early stages with regards to farmland, and less access to the geothermals out in the field).
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 24, 2016, 04:36:15 PM
@spacedorf, rice isn't exactly efficient outside of the hydroponics(and even then it's only because hydroponic corn doesn't exist). On regular soil and gravel potatoes will yield more food, on rich soil corn does best. Rice is only useful outside of hydroponics because it's the quickest growing crop overall. At least that's been my observations, the lessened degree of dead time(time between plant getting harvest ready and sowing new plant) could be a factor in this.
Yeah I choose rice solely on the short growing time for the calculation.
I completely switched to corn because of the bigger yield and it can be eaten raw.
I have this many animals because it is the first time I was able to tame the big game, and bears are big enough to train hauling right after birth, and 1on1 beat a warg every time.
And yes, I did not account for raiders bringing free dogfood and meals. But also I did not account for losses due to taming and training.
Quote from: chaotix14 on August 24, 2016, 04:36:15 PM
We, or at least I believe I don't stand alone in this, don't want indistinguishable benefits between mountainhome, perimeter complex and open colony. We want each to feel differently have their own pro's and cons. But currently the mountainhome trumps all, with it's superior defensive position(attacks are far more predictable where they'll go when only the front door is attackable without sappers and it's mortar fire resistance) while trading in very little in return(maybe less ideal in the early stages with regards to farmland, and less access to the geothermals out in the field).
Thats what I am fighting for.
So here is the graphical explanation of !!FUN!!
[attachment deleted by admin - too old]
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 24, 2016, 03:34:35 PM
1) I think that video link proves the point that the player did not set up an outside base in a way to deal with manhunter packs. For one, an all wooden building against boomrats? Of course wood is going to burn. Second, he tries to take the manhunter pack directly on, which is not the way to do it. Rather he ought to engage in hit and hide tactics from within buildings by hopping in and out of doors and repairing the door if when it is attacked by reacting pack animals. Many dispersed buildings is actually ideal for this tactic as opposed to a single wall, as the pack tends to split up between different doors. Man hunter packs are non issue.
1) He shouldn't have to be forced to build a perimeter-wall to survive Manhunter (nor make it enclosed against Fallout)
2) It's one thing for wood to have a weakness against fire, it's another to force player to NEVER build with wood because it's instant death against boomrat manhunt (rather than a challenging fire)
3) You are more describing an EXPLOIT than an actual tactic. An exploit against what was supposed to be a fix against hit&hide exploit.
His base wouldn't have been destroyed if Manhunter pack didn't acted like homing missile or Terminator.
If infestations are considered sticks, then this is a log.
Cyborg raids
A new cyborg faction, members are guaranteed to have one or more bionic parts, often have advanced parts. Only attacks when a killbox is detected, has special drop pods that can drill through mountain roof, leaving it as mountain roof but spawning in underneath. Generally armed with flamethrowers, SMGs, shotguns, and scyther blade+minigun combos.
And here's a carrot: fencing. Keeps manhunters at bay, cannot be crossed, gates that work as doors are a thing.
Fences provide mediocre low cover and have quite a bit of health. Sappers can cut through fencing.
Urist likes Dorfs for their casualness.
Fencing wouldn't be different from walls other than the fact that you can shoot over them. It creates the illusion of being open, but there is in fact still a barrier around the entire town.
And yes you can cheese the heck out of the manhunter packs, until their AI get's fixed and they will properly smash doors you use for the cheese tactic. The only way to deal with that kind of attack(in a none-cheese way) is a killbox or a perimeter wall.
I don't consider the fact that manhunter packs give up after a while of attacking a door to be an exploit or cheesy. They're animals that happen to want to do violence to humans. They're not going to keep bashing at an inanimate object indefinitely when it fails to yield a human for them to vent their rage upon.
Honestly, if the animals couldn't be stopped by doors and walls, your first non-trivial manhunter pack would be game over every time, barring tactics like killboxes.
Cheese is when you exploit unrealistic or illogical behaviors, like wandering into an obvious trap simply because the pathing score is lower than other paths to get to your target (which is exactly what killboxes do). Cheese is not relying on walls and doors to do what they're designed to do, and expecting animals to display animalistic behavior.
How to bring colonies out into the open? I'm going to go against the grain and suggest making life outside the fortress less harsh than it is. Between hungry predators (lazy ass predators too), super fast manhunter packs, and all manner of other horrors, I only send my colonist outside my walls when absolutely necessary. They also only travel with several pets as sacrificial shields.
Honestly, I don't think mountain bases need to be nerfed anymore (bugs, sappers, etc). In fact, they're completely unviable in the vanilla game thanks to hives (yay imbalance). So how about instead of doing the predictable like making living underground cause more of a mood loss than having your mother die in front of you, add other challenges. One might be finding fresh, clean water. Or lowering the already insanely generous food yields of crops and making animals more scarce on the map so food is harder to find.
I agree with what someone said earlier; make raiders primary target not be the colonist but their stockpile. They want loot and will flee if they take more than slight causalities. Or have them demand tribute instead of attacking immediately. Make mechanoids go for outside machinery, metal, and components (food for their distant hive). Right now this game encourages defensive play because there is so much danger. Adding more danger will either encourage people to play even more defensively or make them give up entirely (or just use mods to change the b******t more to their liking).
We need more SURVIVAL in this survival game. The funnest part of my last game was trying to survive a nuclear winter as a tribal with no electricity (chopping down trees for firewood, trying to get enough fur to make warmer clothes, almost starving to death because a cold snap wiped out most of my crops earlier). We need more challenges like that not "lol the insects spawned all around bobs bed so he's DEAD!" Because those types of challenges may be fun for some people, but I'd say for most (people who don't have a lot of free time) they're not.
Quote from: LordMunchkin on August 25, 2016, 06:00:24 PM
We need more SURVIVAL in this survival game. The funnest part of my last game was trying to survive a nuclear winter as a tribal with no electricity (chopping down trees for firewood, trying to get enough fur to make warmer clothes, almost starving to death because a cold snap wiped out most of my crops earlier). We need more challenges like that not "lol the insects spawned all around bobs bed so he's DEAD!" Because those types of challenges may be fun for some people, but I'd say for most (people who don't have a lot of free time) they're not.
I Like this. All Points in this thread will be adressed some time in development, I am sure about it, since balancing is a very long and slow process. But playing to the strengths of rimworld. Challenges for the Pawns to overcome that have nothing to do with combat experience and the player ability to engineer every AI into helpless cannonfodder.
And before you argue DF. Sappers are on the wishlist for a long time there now, and Drawbridges are the most powerful item in the whole game.
Also every post of me about what you can and can't do under a mountain are heavily biased by my Urist-Notch Syndrome*, which I allready had long before I knew about DF.
I can't even start a map in Rimworld without Marble or Limestone and at least large hills for fear of running out of rocks as building material.
* Urist-Notch Syndrome : Supremacy in gaming through min-maxing, ridiculous overengineering and exploiting every weakness.
If you want people to live more 'open', you need to overhaul the utterly terrible injury system. Every 'complaint' Tynan has about how people play this game stems from people doing everything they can to mitigate a frustrating, badly conceived, screw you RNG injury system.
He doesn't want people to create killboxes, but doesn't want to address why we're doing it.
He doesn't want to add embrasures, but doesn't want to address why we want them.
He doesn't want us to all build underground fortresses, but doesn't want to address why we're doing it.
In every single case the 'bad behaviour' of players in this regard stems directly and incredibly obviously from his design choice which people are working overtime to mitigate as much as possible. What's the most popular mod available? The one that lets you fix any injury.
There's a simple deadlock between the developer and the players here, and if Tynan wants to be stubborn and make 'his' game instead of tuning it closer to the game players want, then anyone who doesn't use a mod to tear out the guts of his 'vision' will just get annoyed/bored and leave. And in that case....why bother making the game?
Quote from: SaintD on August 26, 2016, 01:07:13 AMIn every single case the 'bad behaviour' of players in this regard stems directly and incredibly obviously from his design choice which people are working overtime to mitigate as much as possible. What's the most popular mod available? The one that lets you fix any injury.
Agreed. Continually exposing the player to risks that cannot be recovered from leads to huge efforts toward mitigating those risks.
Quote from: SaintD on August 26, 2016, 01:07:13 AMThere's a simple deadlock between the developer and the players here, and if Tynan wants to be stubborn and make 'his' game instead of tuning it closer to the game players want, then anyone who doesn't use a mod to tear out the guts of his 'vision' will just get annoyed/bored and leave. And in that case....why bother making the game?
I don't think there's anything like this going on. And to be honest, even if the game were horribly balanced and the injury system stays the way it is and combat isn't improved or anything like that, I've got a set of mods installed that overwrite basically all of it, with the most prominent being EPOE and Combat Realism. Now I can play more aggressively in combat without permanently crippling my guys, assuming I have the tech and resources to fix the injuries.
It's not pointless for him to make the game even if mods overwrite huge chunks of it, because he's making the framework that the modders are building onto. The base game is interesting enough to attract a solid modding community, and with such good support for mods I don't see that changing. I'd rather Tynan spend his time implementing new systems for the players to mess with (drugs are a good example of this) rather than overhauling the base game to match what an existing mod has already handled.
The game is still in alpha. That means that the development focus is on putting in all the systems that make up the game. Balancing is for the beta stage. While it's not
wrong to talk about balance at this point, saying that the game is pointless if balance isn't addressed at this stage isn't justified.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 25, 2016, 05:26:50 PM
I don't consider the fact that manhunter packs give up after a while of attacking a door to be an exploit or cheesy. They're animals that happen to want to do violence to humans. They're not going to keep bashing at an inanimate object indefinitely when it fails to yield a human for them to vent their rage upon.
Honestly, if the animals couldn't be stopped by doors and walls, your first non-trivial manhunter pack would be game over every time, barring tactics like killboxes.
Cheese is when you exploit unrealistic or illogical behaviors, like wandering into an obvious trap simply because the pathing score is lower than other paths to get to your target (which is exactly what killboxes do). Cheese is not relying on walls and doors to do what they're designed to do, and expecting animals to display animalistic behavior.
Door stopping/resisting (small) animals isn't the problem, but repairing doors indefinitely as if it had infinite resilience/material
is a stupid exploit.
(to the point that maybe we need a micro-countdown after a structure is hit that forbid repair)Then again, what make it a bigger problem is Manhunter behaving like TERMINATOR. If they didn't cared much for human and stayed away from turret (after being it) we couldn't get free-meat out of a silly exploit.
Speaking of cheese, that's exactly
what the current rules are.
Unrealistic : "Man"hunter not caring for any other source of food
Unrealistic : Repairing door forever with no risk of ever loosing it even if, well, there's a frigging Rhino or multiple WARG tearing it apart (taking WARG as much stronger than wolves).
Unrealistic :
being forced to build a perimeter wall, that's neither supported by history or good for the gameplay.
Illogical behaviors : Animals not staying away waiting for a chance after getting damage from a target they can't reach.
Illogical behaviors : What would be an animal recognizing and avoiding deadfall traps it never saw before.
Of course, realism isn't the goal. But speaking of GAMEPLAY, being forced to build a perimeter wall by
anti-player features made silly is part of what's keeping players from getting in the open.
So you can't solve the problem unless perimeter wall (and indoor fortress) stop being the only way to prosper.
The highly scripted behaviour of certain events and enemies is what drives me to build a perimeter wall and build in mountains, mountains being particularly effective against siege mortar.
Enemy factions will send limitless meat/hardware to fight you throughout the game for no apparent gain other than an irrational hatred of you that can only be calmed by throwing silver at them.
1) Factions on a planet should send out scouts to your location, from their perspective they don't know that a player-led faction has magically started. The stance of the factions should be unknown until you encounter them and learn more about them.
2) Raids and hostile events need tweaking to make them more plausible and less "throw infinite people at the player colony in the hope of almost destroying it".
examples: Pirate raiders should attempt to intercept visitors and trade caravans. They should loiter around and kill animals in an attempt to screw you over, maybe set fires to burn you out, or just "siege" you by attacking any neutral factions that enter your area.
What about Tribute events where a sizeable force appears on the map and demands a tribute of value X, made up of anything you want to give. Diplomatic gift factor, social skills, your own military strength, and the quality of what you give should affect any future demands.
Manhunter packs: IMO they shouldn't pathfind to the nearest colonist as if they were a raid re-coloured as animals. Much like the alphabeaver event, when a manhunter pack enters the map, the animals will simply try to kill any humans on-sight, giving the option of staying out of range.
Psychic waves and animal insanity should also occur on trained animals, perhaps less often and with "dazed" or "confused" effects instead of directly trying to slaughter their masters.
Animals' behaviour should try to be more natural, more nuanced, less "permanent man-hunter mode when training failed" or "ignoring the humans shooting you for the past 10 minutes".
The high RNG during combat is less fun and balanced that it should be (because logically the same rng happens to enemies) but because the attackers frequently have more attackers than you have colonists, the RNG favours them. They also have the extremely unfair advantage of having limitless pawns and guns.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 26, 2016, 02:47:06 PM
Of course, realism isn't the goal. But speaking of GAMEPLAY, being forced to build a perimeter wall by anti-player features made is part of what's keeping players from getting in the open.
So you can't solve the problem unless perimeter wall (and indoor fortress) stop being the only way to prosper.
Dude, practically every historical city of significance built a wall to control borders and defend territory.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 26, 2016, 02:47:06 PM
Unrealistic : being forced to build a perimeter wall, that's neither supported by history or good for the gameplay.
Uh, what?
Almost every culture in existence built some form of palisade around their homes, for defense and for keeping predators away. Building a perimeter fence and wall was an extraordinarily common thing, especially in the US.
Quote from: Boston on August 26, 2016, 07:15:32 PM
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 26, 2016, 02:47:06 PM
Unrealistic : being forced to build a perimeter wall, that's neither supported by history or good for the gameplay.
Uh, what?
Almost every culture in existence built some form of palisade around their homes, for defense and for keeping predators away. Building a perimeter fence and wall was an extraordinarily common thing, especially in the US.
Yup, take that back to the Roman Legions who built forts where ever they camped longer than a few days.
They also build this smaller versions of the Chinese wall in Germania and Brittania.
My "main" problem with open colonies is that your defensive ability, when compared to a "Dwarven Mountainhome"-type affair, isn't that it just lacking, you might as well not even have any defenses at all.
What do open colonies get, in terms of defense? Sandbags, wall-peeking, turrets? Whoop-de-fucking do.
Part of the issue with Tynan being so against things like embrasures is that, really, embrasures, arrowslits and firing ports are realistic. They, rather obviously, existed, especially during the time period Rimworld attempts to emulate and reference itself to ( American Colonization).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockhouse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrasure
Colonial settlers in the US would cut embrasures into the sides of their log cabins, in order to fire guns out on enemies surrounding them.
As for how to balance them, the Embrasures mod on the Workshop is pretty balanced. Enemies will shoot back at your pawns, and they will break down the wall eventually. Grenades will blow it up almost instantly, and mortars are killer.
-make recruitment easier
-make desired min pop = 10, max pop = 30, crit pop = 50
-make bionic craftable
as others have said, the main problem in a long game is the accumulation of injuries for the pawns.
which means, players need the ability to cycle pawns from varying states of injuries as well as being able to efficiently replace or "repair" your pawns back to a combat ready state.
i think there already mods that addresses these. (like modifying popcaps and craftable bionics)
Short version: better defenses require larger enemy forces for there to be a challenge, and larger enemy forces balanced around strong defenses become impossible to engage outside of those defenses. Using embrasures to solve the permanent injury problem is sloppy design.
Long version: The problem with embrasures is strictly a gameplay one tied to strong defenses in general. The stronger the defensive options are, the stronger the attacking waves need to be for there to be an appropriate challenge. When the attackers' numbers are scaled up to deal with strong defensive options, fighting them without the aid of those defenses becomes suicidal. That's the Tower Defense problem, and embrasures feed directly into that. So do turrets, for that matter.
Consider different extremes in the effectiveness of defensive options: if there were a structure that allowed a single pawn to fight off 100 enemies, attacking waves would need to be huge, and trying to do anything outside of that structure would be an instant loss. If there were no turrets or sandbags and wall-peeking were only as effective as using a tree for cover, enemy raids would need to be tiny and it wouldn't make much difference whether you engaged them close to your town or further out.
Building defenses is fun, but when the only options are to use them or lose, it cuts down the types of fighting that you can engage in. Different attack types is a good way to deal with this. Sieges get the player out of their defenses and attacking the enemy unless you just want to blast them with mortars, normal raids force the player back into their defenses. Another attack type that consists of enemies that spread out and avoid your base, but attack visitors and traders, would get the player out of their defenses without being vulnerable to mortar fire the way that sieges are. Sappers get the player out of their base as well.
to prevent embrasures or killboxes from being OP, i think the AI for the raiders with rocket launchers need to be overhauled. ie : (they should function like sappers) and all pirate raids should probably have sappers in their group.
but the other stuff i previously mentioned (about pawn population and craftable bionics) ought to be implemented before hand to balance things out and make it easier to cycle combat-ready pawns, be able to replace damaged limbs, or recruit new pawns to replace the permanently damaged ones that can no longer fight or contribute to the colony.
-------
as for mechanoids. the minigunner and the charge blaster centipedes feel kinda redundant. i think one of them should be able to bust through walls like a sapper.
-------
as for tribals. i think their arrows should be able to arc their shoot through walls (with an aim penalty) at targets that are in unroofed area.
++++++++++++++++++
but even then. i don't think killboxes or under mountains will get removed. ever.
people would still use it and i don't really think there's anything wrong with it.
i'm mostly interested about making it more exciting.
Quote from: night777 on August 26, 2016, 06:57:56 PM
Dude, practically every historical city of significance built a wall to control borders and defend territory.
Quote from: Boston on August 26, 2016, 07:15:32 PM
Almost every culture in existence built some form of palisade around their homes, for defense and for keeping predators away. Building a perimeter fence and wall was an extraordinarily common thing, especially in the US.
Tss....
I just knew I would have to point the obvious again.
Key Word : CITY, not 10 persons settlement. Romans
MILITARY CAMPS were built by Century (100mens), Castle took year to build and didn't house farms.
And speaking of fence, the farmer who actually need them still have problem with animals crossing them anyway. It took like 1000years, electric wire fence, and the complete extermination of wolves to have LESS problem.
As for RAIDER ? Do you see any middle-east civilian settlement today taking the time to build defensive wall ? Not even redneck would do that.
So no, there's no "logical & historical reason" the game is entirely dependent of its gameplay features,
easy to build wall, easy to dig bunker, absolute lack of CAVE-IN (which would happen during both Siege & hypothetical Earthquake), easy indoor farming...
Want more reasons ? Take the Manhunter pack :
- Boomrat, being RAT would be able to climb pass through any wall & fence not completely airtight.
- WARG, being super-wolves would be able to JUMP fence at the least, if not dig below in some place.
- Rhino, Elephant, Mufallo, being what they are would trample the damn fence and destroy a wall not made of -good- metal and rock (shanty town wouldn't stop it).
- Boomalope, if there were more like antelope could be able to jump.
And if we added Bear, being bear can ALSO climb stuffs, including wall if you don't take the time to smoothen any grips.
Rimworld is not a "military camp simulator", nor a "bunker simulator", it is stupid to look at all currents and planned features and act as if the game was aiming for "100 soldiers military base" with "recruitment", "enemy base" and "war of attrition".
You are supposed to build outside, you are supposed to have trouble with manhunter & fallout (beyond mild inconvenience because your entire colony is indoor)
tl;dr
Bunker & Fortress-design have to be nerfed and open-base should be
just as viable (with different pro&con
obviously), not "shitty n00bs design" telling player to "git good".
Earthquakes that triggered random cave-ins would be a realistic feature to make mountain bases more dangerous. It could start with the ground shaking, giving you just enough time to evacuate your pawns before collapse. Open bases would still take some damage, but scaled down from what a mountain base would. I'd like to see more natural disasters in general and fewer bizarre events such as toxic fallout.
Quote from: eadras on August 27, 2016, 11:24:56 AM
Earthquakes that triggered random cave-ins would be a realistic feature to make mountain bases more dangerous. It could start with the ground shaking, giving you just enough time to evacuate your pawns before collapse. Open bases would still take some damage, but scaled down from what a mountain base would. I'd like to see more natural disasters in general and fewer bizarre events such as toxic fallout.
Sure nerf mountain bases some more (they don't need it). I can tell you right now, the moment a heavy-handed feature like that is implemented someone will have a mod to disable or lessen it within 12hrs. Every disaster should be able to be mitigated (that is good game design). And contrary to your belief, a mine wouldn't be particularly more vulnerable to an earthquake than an overland structure. What matters far, far more is the distance from epicenter of quake and the surrounding rheology (some rock types are highly resistant, sediments generally act as an amplifier). So if an underground structure is going to be damaged badly by a quake, the immediately above structures won't be that much better off. Going back to mitigation, all an earthquake should require you to do would to put more reinforce walls and pillars in your mountain base (similarly more pillars in your buildings). As for cave-ins, I'm no mining engineer, but they're fairly rare these days and are almost always due to human error.
Even with all these quibbles, I think earthquakes would be a valuable add-on if done right (designed to slow down mountain base development, not negate it completely). The ultimate goal of this thread is to bring people out of their mountain bases/fortresses. The problem with merely making living in mountain bases worse is that it does nothing to make living the open non-suicidal. A large part of this problem stems from the fact that most of the late-game threats in this game stem from combat, and those encourage people to play defensively because 1) the enemy has infinite pawns while you don't 2) the injury system is way out of wack 3) one bad late game raid=game over. If the dev would dial back the combat threats and increase non-combat threats, you'd find more people living in the open. I think the time has come to put down the stick and pull out the carrot.
Just some ideas:
-raiders demand tribute instead of immediately attacking
-raiders primary target is your stockpiles. They're not interested in wanton destruction because they want to steal from you again.
-raiders will flee if they lose more than 20% of their party.
-you can make peace with all factions. However doing so, puts a permanent cap your relationships with all factions (you're neutral in their conflicts so they really can't trust you).
-mechanoids are only interested in your metal (to feed their hive)
-mechanoids will become hostile forever if you attack them but generally ignore colonists (players will quickly want to stop them from taking all their metal)
-insects are similar but will become hostile if you go near the hive
-manhunters packs should be replaced by hyper intelligent animals that will attack as a group only if you attack them
-nerf ranged combat and buff melee combat
--ammunition has to be crafted
--make melee skill give a parry chance
--add lowtech shields
--make glittertech medicine heal EVERYTHING. They're nanomachines for gods-sake!
-make just staying alive a challenge
--reduce the number of animals on the map.
--reduce the crop yield of plants
--make pawns need clean water
--make crops require a steady access to water (something like a well)
--make it possible to exhaust the local environment (slow down tree growth, make animals come back slower).
--disease should be more deadly and debilitating.
---visitors could bring disease to the colony. Animals could spread it too.
-slow mining speed (digging out caves into the earth with hand tools should require a lot of time).
Here's a stick for killboxes. Well, more of a masterwork plasteel longsword.
Remove turrets.
Ok that may be a bit extreme. How about buffing turret range and making them 2x2?
And some carrots: bridge and Boardwalk
Bridges can be built over shallow and deep water but can't hold structures. Boardwalks can be built over deep water so long as there's a connection to shallow water within about 8 tiles. Boardwalks can hold structures. Yay for jungle island maps being possible.
Island map: several large islands separated by coastal areas, can only be raided by drop pod or with a new raid type: boat. Kinda like drop pod but starts at the edge of the map and beaches at a desirable location. Basically exists to make coastal bases have to worry about behind themselves and islands actually get attacked.
New minibiome( like the ancient danger or a pond): cavern. Capped off with mountain roof or thin roof, stalagmites line the floor around walls, columns hold up the roof, and pools of magma are sometimes scattered about rarely.
Quote
As for RAIDER ? Do you see any middle-east civilian settlement today taking the time to build defensive wall ? Not even redneck would do that.
Do a wikipedia search on Qalat
but failing that follow this link:
http://www.afghanistan-today.org/en/articles/society/162/
Yep, single family home made fortresses in modern times. Whodathunk it?
The only change needed to cave towns is to make mining slower.
The base mining speed is far, FAR too fast for people with basic tools.
Later, once you research mining tools it's OK for mining to be faster.
And what else is needed is NATURAL CAVES.
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 29, 2016, 02:28:11 PM
Quote
As for RAIDER ? Do you see any middle-east civilian settlement today taking the time to build defensive wall ? Not even redneck would do that.
Do a wikipedia search on Qalat
but failing that follow this link:
http://www.afghanistan-today.org/en/articles/society/162/
Yep, single family home made fortresses in modern times. Whodathunk it?
Yeah a rimworld colony needs some kind of defense dug into the mountain cheesy hardcore is bit extreme some of them are made like Doomsday shelters where raiders pretty much have no point at all other then a be little nats.. In which case the story teller should hit you hard with more other events like diseases, infestations, solar flares, and drones hat mess with moods. But that is complicated to code in so it knows who is running a damn doomsday bunker lol
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 29, 2016, 02:28:11 PM
Do a wikipedia search on Qalat
but failing that follow this link:
http://www.afghanistan-today.org/en/articles/society/162/
Yep, single family home made fortresses in modern times. Whodathunk it?
Again...
KEY WORD :
civilian,
settlement,
today.
Not fortress built at the time (800–909 for Qalat) when it was useful for big army above the hundred, protecting them from primitive weapons (and fed from all around unprotected village).
Your link at least it fit the keyword (I had to find new pictures (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8q5DatIKPR0/Vm0LJF4_diI/AAAAAAAAAc0/8oP7d8u_xgk/s1600/IMG_3053.JPG) as your link's picture are somehow broken).
I'm actually familiar with those house (I saw a documentary), yes it describe
HOUSE made of MUD being surprisingly solid (we already have that) plus a hyperbole that a courtyard + a 2nd floor kinda look like a fortress (especially since Rimworld is flat and seem to have 1meter thick wall).
Still nothing to do with 3 to 20 peoples settlement covering entire village
, storage, machinery & farms within defense walls (and roofed)
with absolutely no downside.
In a way it even comfort my point : Separate house/building are survivable. It's not like anybody will keep you from building an hotel with courtyard or dig tunnel. We are not trying to "ruin your game" but airtight fortress and bunker shouldn't be superior in all aspects (or at all actually).
Tynan & co solved the "mandatory Killbox design", next is the "mandatory all around defense-wall" & "bunker immunity". Let's hope the latest change on raiders and person-per-tile helped.
Btw : I made two topic to discuss some more possible solution to our problem :
[structure] More "walls" to give more balance opportunity (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=25070.msg256464#msg256464)
[gameplay] Reworking Manhunter pack (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=25119.0)
The hardest part is finding a solution that keep the harsher biomes playable.
Why should you even try to compare a Rimworld colony to a civilian settlement today? There's basically no comparison, except that the colonists are likely civilians themselves.
But Rimworld isn't a world where civilians get to be civilians. They adopt a militaristic mindset, or they get murdered and eaten; If they're lucky, in that order. Their settlements shouldn't look like civilian settlements from a world where death isn't waiting just over the horizon.
Dude, I fucking get it; We all get it. You don't want to have to build walls around your settlements. I say more power to you; Different playstyles should be supported. But seriously, stop trying to support your perspective by saying that walls aren't realistic, because they absolutely are, as has been proven multiple times in this thread. Maybe they're not fun for you, and that's a perfectly reasonable stance from which to argue for changes. Stick to that gun, die on that hill, and most people here will be happy to lend you their sword, their axe and their survival rifle. Keep harping about walls and realism, and you're going to be the first one eaten by your fellow colonists when times get tough.
But arguing about whether or not walls are realistic is completely derailing the point of this thread, which is to find balanced ways to bring colonies out of the mountains, out from behind the killboxes, and out from behind the pervasive perimeter walls. Make open colonies more than just artificially-induced difficulty; Make them fun.
I think there have been some great ideas (biased, of course, I think mine have been some of the best ones) to do just that, but then every so often we get back to arguing about fucking Walls and the Real WorldTM.
Walls in Rimworld aren't going anywhere. Let's stick to discussing fun alternatives.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 30, 2016, 02:21:42 PM
Again...
KEY WORD : civilian, settlement, today.
Not fortress built at the time (800–909 for Qalat) when it was useful for big army above the hundred, protecting them from primitive weapons (and fed from all around unprotected village).
Your link at least it fit the keyword (I had to find new pictures (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8q5DatIKPR0/Vm0LJF4_diI/AAAAAAAAAc0/8oP7d8u_xgk/s1600/IMG_3053.JPG) as your link's picture are somehow broken).
I'm actually familiar with those house (I saw a documentary), yes it describe HOUSE made of MUD being surprisingly solid (we already have that) plus a hyperbole that a courtyard + a 2nd floor kinda look like a fortress (especially since Rimworld is flat and seem to have 1meter thick wall).
Still nothing to do with 3 to 20 peoples settlement covering entire village , storage, machinery & farms within defense walls (and roofed) with absolutely no downside.
Rimworld
isn't "today", nor are there civilians on a Rimworld. On a Rimworld, unless you are one of the few people incapable of violence, if you don't fight, you die.
You aren't understanding the fact the the idea of a "civilian" is a
very recent idea, like only developed within the last 500 years or so. Before then, you were your day-to-day profession .......
and a warrior. You would grow some crops, and when the raiders came up over that hill, you grabbed your spear and fought them off. Saw some Natives skulking around, you went in your cabin, grabbed the rifle and fought them off.
Quote from: Boston on August 30, 2016, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 30, 2016, 02:21:42 PM
Again...
KEY WORD : civilian, settlement, today.
Not fortress built at the time (800–909 for Qalat) when it was useful for big army above the hundred, protecting them from primitive weapons (and fed from all around unprotected village).
Your link at least it fit the keyword (I had to find new pictures (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8q5DatIKPR0/Vm0LJF4_diI/AAAAAAAAAc0/8oP7d8u_xgk/s1600/IMG_3053.JPG) as your link's picture are somehow broken).
I'm actually familiar with those house (I saw a documentary), yes it describe HOUSE made of MUD being surprisingly solid (we already have that) plus a hyperbole that a courtyard + a 2nd floor kinda look like a fortress (especially since Rimworld is flat and seem to have 1meter thick wall).
Still nothing to do with 3 to 20 peoples settlement covering entire village , storage, machinery & farms within defense walls (and roofed) with absolutely no downside.
Rimworld isn't "today", nor are there civilians on a Rimworld. On a Rimworld, unless you are one of the few people incapable of violence, if you don't fight, you die.
You aren't understanding the fact the the idea of a "civilian" is a very recent idea, like only developed within the last 500 years or so. Before then, you were your day-to-day profession ....... and a warrior. You would grow some crops, and when the raiders came up over that hill, you grabbed your spear and fought them off. Saw some Natives skulking around, you went in your cabin, grabbed the rifle and fought them off.
Oh it has been a bit longer than 500 years, and as your colony was settled, people fell back into that mindset .. true.
But there were Civilians all of the Time, called Women, Children, Old People.
But I have to concede to your that the militaristic point still stands.
One Settlement of Five on a Planet ( shrink it down to continent, even country if you want .. )
composed of some shipwrecked dudes, drifters, refugees and persuaded prisoners ... who call themselves "colonists" I can't see them surviving in a permanent settlement without taking every precaution. Including a City Wall.
I think as a comparison we should use every post-apocalyptic movie.
A few peaceful settlements and a lot of assholes with guns .. usually those settlements have manned walls with all kind of weapons to protect their civilians.
Also most Wartime Villigas have one or two things we can't have in rimworld.
Namely Cellars and Tunnels.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 30, 2016, 05:03:08 PM
Quote from: Boston on August 30, 2016, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 30, 2016, 02:21:42 PM
Again...
KEY WORD : civilian, settlement, today.
Not fortress built at the time (800–909 for Qalat) when it was useful for big army above the hundred, protecting them from primitive weapons (and fed from all around unprotected village).
Your link at least it fit the keyword (I had to find new pictures (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8q5DatIKPR0/Vm0LJF4_diI/AAAAAAAAAc0/8oP7d8u_xgk/s1600/IMG_3053.JPG) as your link's picture are somehow broken).
I'm actually familiar with those house (I saw a documentary), yes it describe HOUSE made of MUD being surprisingly solid (we already have that) plus a hyperbole that a courtyard + a 2nd floor kinda look like a fortress (especially since Rimworld is flat and seem to have 1meter thick wall).
Still nothing to do with 3 to 20 peoples settlement covering entire village , storage, machinery & farms within defense walls (and roofed) with absolutely no downside.
Rimworld isn't "today", nor are there civilians on a Rimworld. On a Rimworld, unless you are one of the few people incapable of violence, if you don't fight, you die.
You aren't understanding the fact the the idea of a "civilian" is a very recent idea, like only developed within the last 500 years or so. Before then, you were your day-to-day profession ....... and a warrior. You would grow some crops, and when the raiders came up over that hill, you grabbed your spear and fought them off. Saw some Natives skulking around, you went in your cabin, grabbed the rifle and fought them off.
Oh it has been a bit longer than 500 years, and as your colony was settled, people fell back into that mindset .. true.
But there were Civilians all of the Time, called Women, Children, Old People.
But I have to concede to your that the militaristic point still stands.
One Settlement of Five on a Planet ( shrink it down to continent, even country if you want .. )
composed of some shipwrecked dudes, drifters, refugees and persuaded prisoners ... who call themselves "colonists" I can't see them surviving in a permanent settlement without taking every precaution. Including a City Wall.
I think as a comparison we should use every post-apocalyptic movie.
A few peaceful settlements and a lot of assholes with guns .. usually those settlements have manned walls with all kind of weapons to protect their civilians.
Also most Wartime Villigas have one or two things we can't have in rimworld.
Namely Cellars and Tunnels.
If angry Natives were attacking your homestead, you bet that the wife and the kids would be helping defend it. Hell, the wife would probably have a firearm of her own!
And, if you think the wife and kids would get spared because they were "noncombatants", well .... I've got a bridge to sell to you.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 26, 2016, 07:34:00 PM
Yup, take that back to the Roman Legions who built forts where ever they camped longer than a few days.
They also build this smaller versions of the Chinese wall in Germania and Brittania.
The Romans didn't just wall their forts or cities. They built walls around ENEMY cities they were seiging, to trap people inside. At the Battle of Alesia they build a wall around the city, then ANOTHER wall around the city AND their fort, to keep relief forces from entering or attacking. They were just nuts about walls and building in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia
I'll keep saying it, if guns get buffed to be more lethal and mortars get nerfed, there will be a much bigger incentive to build outside. Currently, it's near impossible to defend against 80 person raids with 10-20 people. Guns just aren't lethal enough, nor do they have enough range.
If you want to survive through that, you need to try your little heart out and use every exploit you can.
Alternatively this could be turned into a colony simulator rather than an arcade wave survival game. In what bloody world will pirates send an army to deal with a tiny little village? Possibly cap it based on your wealth. Small targets will attract the attention of small-time raiders, being completely unnoticed by the pirate groups that can apparently field hundreds upon hundreds of people as expendables.
Quote from: Reviire on August 31, 2016, 08:59:02 AM
I'll keep saying it, if guns get buffed to be more lethal and mortars get nerfed, there will be a much bigger incentive to build outside. Currently, it's near impossible to defend against 80 person raids with 10-20 people. Guns just aren't lethal enough, nor do they have enough range.
That sounds more like endgame raids need to be nerfed. I'd rather not buff guns because that would make the random straight-up assaults at the start of the game more lethal.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 30, 2016, 04:19:28 PM
Why should you even try to compare a Rimworld colony to a civilian settlement today? There's basically no comparison, except that the colonists are likely civilians themselves.
[...]
But seriously, stop trying to support your perspective by saying that walls aren't realistic, because they absolutely are, as has been proven multiple times in this thread
With that logic we might as well stop any semblance of BASIC VERISIMILITUDE (google that), so let's add a feature to the game so you are forced to build a moat for no credible reasons, and let's call that "logical & realistic" because it happened in the context-less past...
Basic knowledge of history disprove that
context-less and gross generalization and if I had to repeat that ad nauseam it's because the the
exact opposite keep happening :
people "trying to support their perspective by saying that <insert broken yet popular feature> is realistic" ...and thus shouldn't be argued against.
We had the same happening before with Killbox even if was more clearly ridiculous at the time.
"Killbox is a realistic term in the military and history show that fortress are fundamentally like convex killbox that you couldn't go around, please don't add sapper, endless wave of warriors getting killed was common & realistic in medieval time.
...to the point I'll even understand if you believe I'm exaggerating.
But I'm afraid that even if we agree that
allmost playstyles should be made viable, we will still end up debating a common point of reference. (cause you see, some people here not only don't believe there's a problem, but that all
colonybase should be better fortress)
Quote from: Boston on August 30, 2016, 04:41:56 PM
Rimworld isn't "today", nor are there civilians on a Rimworld. On a Rimworld, unless you are one of the few people incapable of violence, if you don't fight, you die.
[...]
You would grow some crops, and when the raiders came up over that hill, you grabbed your spear and fought them off. Saw some Natives skulking around, you went in your cabin, grabbed the rifle and fought them off.
Oh please... don't start moving the goal post around. If I take you by the word "warrior" (def : a person engaged or experienced in warfare) is a much more recent & artificial idea than "civilian" (def : anybody not part of a army/militia/police). Going back to when humanity were "pack of apes" there was NO "warriors" because there was no war & no warfare, just opportunistic apes who sometime had pride or were too territorial for their own survival.
Now I'm not going to make you an history course because I hope we can agree that Rimworld tech-level reach beyond Tribal-culture, archaic defense-system and because one of the subtext of my post is how the game "realism" is
Dependent on Game-design & Features. Obligatory perimeter-walls aren't "realistic because it work in Rimworld", it's just "something you do because the gameplay punish you if you don't".
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 30, 2016, 05:03:08 PM
I think as a comparison we should use every post-apocalyptic movie.
A few peaceful settlements and a lot of assholes with guns .. usually those settlements have manned walls with all kind of weapons to protect their civilians.
I completely support the context you are building here...
...but good luck to get people to agree that post-apocalyptic bunker should be
nerfednot utterly superior to make post-apocalyptic open-village equally viable, how and why.
I'm starting to think that this topic cannot be used to suggest/discuss ideas, only give the Devs some clues of what bother players.
-
In the grim world of Rimworld's Forum, there is only bickering.
At the risk of annoying the hell out of people who are invested in this topic, I have decided to post a picture of my most recent adventure in building an "open" colony. It was played on a vanilla Randy Challenge with a randomly selected biome (flat temperate forest) started in Winter. The picture was taken after one in game year. It survived multiple man-hunter packs and raids, and a poison ship. No fatalities yet and only a few permanent injuries. Shortly after this picture was taken, a toxic fallout proved to be a great source of meat, and as it came in winter, it did not kill off the crops. That and a couple more raids proved impotent. A man-hunter pack of elephants are now recovering in the barn waiting to be tamed...
The only major event that has been suggested in this thread as a reason not to build in the open that has not occurred is a siege, which I suspect could be as problematic as has been discussed. Everything else has been a piece of cake, largely because the multiple doors tends to cause the AI to lose focus, and the power doors allow effective hit and run sniping. So, with the current build and balancing I am gonna say that with the possible exception of sieges, there really is not a problem with the game or events forcing under-mountain homes so much as with the fear caused by these events. At least with Randy, a well planned open colony is defensible.
Some might argue that it is not truly open because, despite the lack of a perimeter wall, because the rooms are still fully enclosed and that there are no historical examples of buildings with walls on all four sides punctuated only by doors. I really don't know what to say to those people. Others may argue that this is not a fair example since I have not used any turrets in the defense of the colony. They are correct.
[attachment deleted by admin - too old]
QuoteBASIC VERISIMILITUDE (google that)
Listen. You try your weak-ass low-key insults on me one more fucking time, and I'm going to take off the gloves.
The fact of the matter is that you're wrong, and insulting people's intelligence and repeating the same tired arguments isn't going to change that. Your presence in this thread has led to more bullshit off-topic arguments than helpful conversation, and your suggestions that are actually useful are getting buried in the mud that you keep kicking up.
Also:
QuoteI'm starting to think that this topic cannot be used to suggest/discuss ideas, only give the Devs some clues of what bother players.
Seriously? You're half of the reason why this might be true, if not more. I'll openly admit to my share of it because I'm not going to stop calling you on your bullshit, but nearly every time we've descended from discussion of improvements and changes to the game to encourage more open layouts, it's been because you've insulted someone or made your patently false "walls aren't realistic" argument.
Get on the topic, or go away.
Darth Fool: I think this is a good example of how an open colony is viable; The problem that a lot of the discussions here are trying to address is the moderately steep difference in difficulty, and the lack of any sort of real reward for playing this way. I've also argued that open layouts like this may actually be better against manhunter packs than traditional forts (assuming "wait it out" isn't your go-to strategy). Larger raids still seem like they'd be pretty murderous in this sort of layout, since you're going to have multiples of raiders per every colonist, and there's not an easy way to mass fires while the raiders are still grouped up.
I started a colony a few months ago that was open with sandbags between buildings. Combine that with a lucky, early purchase of an assault rifle and having skilled colonists, (and a few times when I used debug to help with things that weren't "fun" challenging, just stupid and couldn't be dealt with without it,) we survived for about 3-4 years, so with a little skill and luck it definitely is possible.
One feature that would probably make open bases more likely is denser forests. It's hard to build a huge fortress when there are trees everywhere, so this might lead to more "cluster-of-cabins" settlements. I personally try to make those types of settlements since I prefer them to big, advanced colonies since I think they fit the style and themes of Rimworld better. Another major thing would be to add a new storyteller that starts with small events, then makes big ones that eventually stop getting bigger and could add another ending more related to "surviving" rather than "thriving." I feel like it's a bit too easy to have a huge colony although I don't think it should be any harder to get established. It should be harder to grow one's colony.
Quote from: Darth Fool on August 31, 2016, 04:32:51 PM
At the risk of annoying the hell out of people who are invested in this topic, I have decided to post a picture of my most recent adventure in building an "open" colony.
[...]
Some might argue that it is not truly open because, despite the lack of a perimeter wall, because the rooms are still fully enclosed and that there are no historical examples of buildings with walls on all four sides punctuated only by doors. I really don't know what to say to those people. Others may argue that this is not a fair example since I have not used any turrets in the defense of the colony. They are correct.
That's overall constructive but the end is just getting petty.
And I don't know who is the moron who would think this isn't a open base ...or that "4 sided walls with doors" is enough to describe the problem. I remember there was a mention of the easiness to build indoor farm, or that nonsensical-events forced you to build airtight-dome if you wanted to avoid entirely terminator-animals, along other.
In any case the problem didn't disappear because someone
knowingly played rougher and was lucky/or else (did you used that bait & infinite repair door exploit ? or wait it out with traps ? Curiosity : why did you separate the wind turbine/solar panel from common pathfinding ?)
...All it does is
demonstrate that open-base get it rougher than if you followed the fortress-design that make entire events inconsequential, lessen food problem and else. See, I never argued that open base where impossible, just "harder and actively discouraged".
Not to be dismissive of your result or to move the goal post (that can't be set IMHO). But the random nature of the storyteller (especially randy), the way wealth influence danger (no turret = less dangerous events), traits&skills lottery, non-linear difficulty increase over a years, or simply the players playstyles variation mean that you'd need a much wider statistical base to make a point (like the boomrat army video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vhG9E8o_e0&feature=youtu.be&t=1112) was only specific to manhunter absurdity).
And speaking of points, if we didn't get sidetracked, I though mines should have got along with yours. I'm not suggesting to make fortress/bunker interchangeable with as you once described along the wording of 'badly defended open-base', but to change/remove the features that punish you for building open so they stay as/more problematic but compatible with open-base, along adding perfectly reasonable challenge to bunker/fortress so they have interesting downside.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 31, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
QuoteBASIC VERISIMILITUDE (google that)
Listen. You try your weak-ass low-key insults on me one more fucking time, and I'm going to take off the gloves.
Insult ? No, just no, it really wasn't an insult, at worse it was a sarcastic retort because you were pretty dismissive of my point yourself and I was hinting both as how it goes against Verisimilitude to keep comparing Rimworld to "military camps" and how you could in fact make a feature to force moat and defend it the same way.
If it sit better with you we can move the comparison to movie "post-apocalyptical setting", but we will probably just argue again about whether or not such camps would "logically" need walls (death at the horizon...etc).
I try my damnedest to show a wider perspective, point out the more critical points
(how Rimworld allow easy indoor farms, how rimworld aren't all 100 soldiers camps, how strong-walls are absurdly easy to build, how the manhunter-gameplay rest upon a nonsensical logic) so it's not my fault if you can't see the double standard flying around.
ex "You can't compare warzone small-settlement to Rimworld, but I will compare old-Romans camps to Rimworld" followed by "Next I will imply a big mud-house with courtyard defend Rimworld farm-fortress"Free to you to say the problem is me, but what if the problem was you and other ?
More than enough peoples here understand my points & don't make strawman by pretending I am against anything with contiguous walls and doors... or claimed that I was the one insulting people with a "patently false <insert strawman>" when I'm only pointing out
the critical points they overlooked.
I'm just sorry to not be easing
the ego of people missing the full picture, if I told you "I'm actually closer to the topic than you are" there's no way you won't take that as an insult even if baked it up. (any of my post speak for itself)
The irony ? YOU AGREE WITH MOST OF MY POINT but the devil really is in the details like "you shouldn't have a worse time playing without a defense-walls" that get us sidetracked.
And why the details ? Because sometime the best carrot to bring players outside is a challenging stick. But you can't even say stick with people who will throw personal attack at any mention/example that it's realistic/legitimate to
nerfmake their indoor farm-fortress more challenging. This despite the maddening fact that most wouldn't care much if it was a new unrelated features that forced it upon them, it's just hard to discuss.
Take it as you wish. When I said that goal-driven suggestion topic are more productive than this thread, that wasn't a insult to you or anybody else either, just a valid opinion about
Multi-pages topic with Open-Question.
Now if you excuse me, I'll be suggesting that drugs can provoke random claustrophobia and maybe irrational fear of indoor farm ...joking.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 31, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
Darth Fool: I think this is a good example of how an open colony is viable; The problem that a lot of the discussions here are trying to address is the moderately steep difference in difficulty, and the lack of any sort of real reward for playing this way. I've also argued that open layouts like this may actually be better against manhunter packs than traditional forts (assuming "wait it out" isn't your go-to strategy). Larger raids still seem like they'd be pretty murderous in this sort of layout, since you're going to have multiples of raiders per every colonist, and there's not an easy way to mass fires while the raiders are still grouped up.
Actually, this is at least as easy to defend as a single entranceway. Raiders come from one direction and in general there is time to line up all ranged weapons on the far side, with melee weapons hidden behind doors on the near side to clean up. Raiders will typically mostly come through one of the four entrances with only a few stragglers on the other entrances. A minigun, a couple of charge rifles and the survival rifle have generally been more than adequate at eliminating even a fairly large tribal raid. And the distraction of multiple doors wants they are in the central plaza tends to keep them from all rushing at once towards their exterminators.
While I have repaired doors during manhunter events, with granite doors it has not been necessary so much as just a matter of efficiency to take advantage of my otherwise waiting melee units. I have not had to repair doors while they were still being attacked to prevent a break-in.
Yes, this does take more attention than having an automatic kill box of turrets behind which one can completely ignore all incoming threats, but it is not that much. It requires occasionally moving a pawn behind a door when melee units get too close, and moving them back into the doorway when the opportunity arrises. The major potential difficulty is the question of scaling. This has worked well for a colony of between 4 and 9 colonists. At a certain point I will need to create a second square or expand the first to accommodate larger numbers of colonists and deal with the resultant larger number of raiders. I have not yet hit that limit, however.
I'd like to mention to people that we may be approaching the comparison to the real world in a bit of a skewed manner, usually in the real world there wasn't a sustainable food supply within the defensive walls of any defensive structure, which is a very big difference from the usual rimworld colony we are comparing it against. It was and very much still is extremely impractical to defend an area large enough to contain enough food production to sustain the workers and the defensive force needed to defend the area. A city wall contained the core of the city, but most (if not all) of the area supplying the city with food was beyond the defensive structures. There is a reason why a siege was(and still is) the best method of bringing a city, castle or any defensive structure to it's knees, because almost all the things needed to sustain that defensive position are outside of the defensive position, while you can still bring in supplies for the besieging force.
As you might guess my particular stick isn't so much with the idea of perimeter walls, because they are the functional basis of every defensive position ever(from the beginning of civilization to the modern world) and will probably be until the only thing that can protect you from certain annihilation is not being detected at all. My stick is with that self sustained colony within the perimeter walls that can easily manage defending that entire perimeter with a handful of dudes.
You know how a village or a couple of farms clumped together(which is the approximatie size of a typical rimworld colony) defended against raiders and thieves? A bit like that redneck with the shotgun that comes after you yelling at you to get the hell off his property or by using the buildings they have as cover while attacking the intruders. Not by building a defensive wall around all their farmlands.
@darth, nice to see that you've been able to hold together an open colony. Looks pretty nice actually. But using an exploit(the whole shoot through door, run back inside, repair door till they lose interest and repeat cycle is very much exploiting the ai) against the manhunters to survive them is also something that's not desirable, since well it's an exploit and beyond the fact that there is a reasonable chance for exploits to be removed it's not fun to have to rely on exploits to deal with unfairly balanced events.
Quote from: chaotix14 on September 01, 2016, 07:29:50 AM
@darth, nice to see that you've been able to hold together an open colony. Looks pretty nice actually. But using an exploit(the whole shoot through door, run back inside, repair door till they lose interest and repeat cycle is very much exploiting the ai) against the manhunters to survive them is also something that's not desirable, since well it's an exploit and beyond the fact that there is a reasonable chance for exploits to be removed it's not fun to have to rely on exploits to deal with unfairly balanced events.
Actually, I was quite explicitly not having to repair the door until they lose interest. The key is that having multiple shooters in multiple doorways, and having the ability to move from one doorway to another to attack whatever is attacking the first door allows one to fairly quickly deal with manhunter packs. In no situation have I had to repair a door to defeat the manhunter packs. This is in contrast to single entrance fortresses where one does need to repair the only door since it becomes the focus of all the manhunters.
Siege warfare isn't what it used to be, in a world of guns and mortars, either.
But really, the main thing that keeps siege warfare from being a valid tactic in Rimworld is that the raids are never there long enough. You've either got enough turrets or other traps to make them give up long before starvation becomes an issue, even if you don't have hydroponics up and running. If you don't have sufficient infrastructure to wipe them out quickly, then they're likely to get into your base fairly easily; Basically, stalemate is never an option, so real sieges never happen.
Of course, I'm not really sure how that relates to the conversation of bringing colonies out into the open.
I also disagree that repairing, or even simply having doors strong enough to withstand predators while you do the hit-and-run tactic is an exploit, at least against animals. Animals are going to lose interest in attacking an inanimate object that neither screams nor bleeds after a while. That tactic against human opponents shouldn't be as effective; But that's not going to change unless the AI becomes more patient.
I do also think infinitely repairable doors is also a smidge silly; Combat repairs would amount to shoving spare materials into the space and securing them the best you're able; After the threat is past, you're probably going to have to remove the old one and put a new one up in its place. I'm not completely sure how to reflect that in game, except to perhaps have a degrading max health value.
I think it might be worthwhile, when I've more time on my hands, to comb back through the last few months of suggestions, and pull together all of the ones that I (at least) think will be the most effective set of suggestions to make open colonies more viable.
I apologize if this has been suggested already but my solution here is the same that I have for Dwarf Fortress.
Water.
It wouldn't even require a "thirst" mechanic if you require water to cook. Require water to grow crops indoors (or outdoors if it doesn't rain enough).
Rain-barrels, rain-collecting roofs, wells (built on dirt, finite water/season), collecting from lakes/marsh/rivers, condensers, pumps, atmospheric miners. Mostly things that either only work outside.
Add to this a change to the "siege" mechanic to make them behave more like a typical siege. Instead of the raiders appearing and immediately start shelling have them plan a longer system. If they're there for a siege they should be there for a long hall, with reinforcements coming and/or supply lines bringing them more resources.
Once they're secure they should pick apart anything that is outside of your "secure" zone. Which likely will cut off your water supply.
If you want to get really tricky have different purity levels of water that interact with disease mechanics in the game.
We all want to fish but that's the sort of feature that can kill an entire game.
We want to make it more interesting to go/build in the open, not to make it chore to be anywhere not near a source of water.
Ideally a new feature is always fun in itself or along other features. Not just a new chore.
I do think we can get water to work but myself I wouldn't do it in a way that constrain you. It would be more like "optional mood buffs" that you want to afford late-colony so you can say your colony is so awesome there's a shower... made of gold... in every bedroom.
Earthquakes! Make it more dangerous due cave-ins inside mountains.
Quote from: Kegereneku on September 02, 2016, 12:56:34 PM
We all want to fish but that's the sort of feature that can kill an entire game.
We want to make it more interesting to go/build in the open, not to make it chore to be anywhere not near a source of water.
Ideally a new feature is always fun in itself or along other features. Not just a new chore.
I do think we can get water to work but myself I wouldn't do it in a way that constrain you. It would be more like "optional mood buffs" that you want to afford late-colony so you can say your colony is so awesome there's a shower... made of gold... in every bedroom.
"not to make it chore to be anywhere not near a source of water." -> I think this is an excellent plan, actually! In addition to being realistic, desert maps are pretty boring right now, but adding "struggle to find enough water" would give them something fun to do. Melting ice on ice sheets, needing to purify water in swampy areas, needing to collect water in rain barrels...
I think it'd be quite interesting - plenty of story fodder there in a way that can't simply be solved by "add more steel" like food can. It provides a carrot to open bases (you can be near water!) and to open farming (you can rely on rain more!) at the same time - bonus!
(yes, I'm excited about water in case you couldn't tell)
Quote from: BlueWinds on September 02, 2016, 06:11:26 PM
Quote from: Kegereneku on September 02, 2016, 12:56:34 PM
We all want to fish but that's the sort of feature that can kill an entire game.
We want to make it more interesting to go/build in the open, not to make it chore to be anywhere not near a source of water.
Ideally a new feature is always fun in itself or along other features. Not just a new chore.
I do think we can get water to work but myself I wouldn't do it in a way that constrain you. It would be more like "optional mood buffs" that you want to afford late-colony so you can say your colony is so awesome there's a shower... made of gold... in every bedroom.
"not to make it chore to be anywhere not near a source of water." -> I think this is an excellent plan, actually! In addition to being realistic, desert maps are pretty boring right now, but adding "struggle to find enough water" would give them something fun to do. Melting ice on ice sheets, needing to purify water in swampy areas, needing to collect water in rain barrels...
I think it'd be quite interesting - plenty of story fodder there in a way that can't simply be solved by "add more steel" like food can. It provides a carrot to open bases (you can be near water!) and to open farming (you can rely on rain more!) at the same time - bonus!
(yes, I'm excited about water in case you couldn't tell)
I like the idea of water. A problem is that pools are randomly generated on a map and move with every regeneration of that map. So if I spawn supa awesum seed on world blah in location x,y which has a pool next to 3 steam geysers in a nice little valley. You may not get the same result.
Also the first new mod would be a new building (well) that will infinately produce water. Which wouldn't really solve anything (my
dwarfs people would still be happy in the mountain..)
I would like to see mechanics such as snow being melted to water, barrels to hold water and water collection. But I think this would detract from the 'fun' factor. Especially at the start of a game. A player would see their colonist spend most of thier time hauling water from A to B and that would be most of the activity for the day.
This mechanic wouldn't 'force' players outside. It would just make them re-roll maps until they got 'mountain' + water outside mountain' which they would wall in for protection.
Quote from: deslona on September 02, 2016, 07:45:41 PM
I like the idea of water. A problem is that pools are randomly generated on a map and move with every regeneration of that map. So if I spawn supa awesum seed on world blah in location x,y which has a pool next to 3 steam geysers in a nice little valley. You may not get the same result.
Also the first new mod would be a new building (well) that will infinately produce water. Which wouldn't really solve anything (my dwarfs people would still be happy in the mountain..)
I would like to see mechanics such as snow being melted to water, barrels to hold water and water collection. But I think this would detract from the 'fun' factor. Especially at the start of a game. A player would see their colonist spend most of thier time hauling water from A to B and that would be most of the activity for the day.
This mechanic wouldn't 'force' players outside. It would just make them re-roll maps until they got 'mountain' + water outside mountain' which they would wall in for protection.
Honestly, people who re-roll maps until they get the map that they want are the ones who are missing out on the true RimWorld experience. If they want to make an awesome survival game, such as this one, become trivially easy, that's on them. It's no different than save-scumming in my honest opinion.
As far as early game goes, I think the tedium of making sure physiological needs are met would make the game both more challenging and more fun. Collecting water can be balanced so that it doesn't take up an unnecessary amount of time. And, eventually, water collection can become very passive. But, you have to
earn that kind of luxury!
Just look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--iElpdB2kyo/TmeqwOK_VOI/AAAAAAAADU8/-BMGiVsjQ1w/s1600/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs.jpg)
The main need missing from RimWorld, from a survival point of view, is the need for water. I'm really hoping this gets added eventually. Maybe it'll make mountain bases a little more challenging, without making them obsolete.
I don't see a real loss here.
I was only saying there's "adding water" and there's "adding water in an interesting way". Not saying it can't be good.
We can discuss how to do this for years and I would expect Tynan to surprise us with something we never imagined.
So yeah I think we agree that "outside water source" would bring people to the outside. Just have to keep the things working within all biomes. I never played "hottest possible desert", so someone will have to tell us if you could survive to ALSO install water sources (starting the game in winter or so ?) and repair it at the peak of summer. (knowing that the devs can make events go easier)
I play mostly on Hardcore SK mod so i'm not that up on normal game strategy, but here are some ideas and observations:
First off, much like in Hardcore, automatic turrets should be considered an expensive, hi tech toy to have for defense, not bread and butter of it.
Speaking of combat, a bit hardcore plus a bit of realism would suggest that if you want your colonists to not get hurt, you should try pick your fights with heavy firepower and at long ranges, where your better trained colonists can shoot better than the average thug. At the close quarters of a mountain base even some pirate's crappy shotgun, bullet spamming SMG, or tribal's javelins should have the potential to be deadly. And then there are explosives. If someone throws and shoots a grenade at you, you run. If you fight in an open area, you have plenty of space to run to. In close quarters, if it turns out you have nowhere to run, you get savaged by the explosion. Long story short, close quarters combat should be intense and give even the less equipped side a good chance to hurt the other's guys.
Then there are tactics. You have your walled in base? Instead of storming right into the traps and killboxes, trying to break through the doors, the AI could just camp and patrol near the doors, forcing you to either fight in the open or be stuck away from outside resources.
Another reason that kind of goes against having mined out bases in hardcore is the higher need for space due to much more extansive factory facilities needed, and more types\amount of resources to store.
After all, the basic principle of building time\effort efficiency is that if you mine, you allocate effort\time per square of building area. Great for small rooms, not so much for big rooms. OTOH if you build in the open, the amount of building area you get is not linearly proportional to the amount of wall you need to build. A 3x3 "useful area" building in the open needs 5x5 walls, totalling 16 squares, about 1.7 wall per useful square. A 3x3 mined out room needs 9 squares to be mined out, 1 per 1.
But if you get into big rooms, say 10x10, in the open that takes 12x12 wall, 44 wall sections, for 100 useful area - a massive improvement to work per gained area efficiency, from 1.7 wall per square to 0.45 wall per useful square. Meanwhile, by mining, you still need 100 rock sections mined out, still 1 per 1. Long story short, want less mountain bases, promote larger (area wise) colonies with solid benefits to being more spaced out. Perhaps more crafting? Or more farming?
And then there is another potentially very fun idea, namely expand the fire\temperature system and make it more meaningful. Such tight, bunkered out bases are damn fire hazards.
And by fire hazard i don't mean just the fire, think of all the temperature and smoke in confined space. If you have a "conventional" open village style base, and a fire starts, well one hut may be on fire, people run out of it, and you get to extinguish it from the outside before other stuff and other huts catch fire from it.
Lots of smoke and thermal energy goes into the sky, most of the hut burns down in worst case scenario.
Massive bunker style base? Oh boy. Smoke everywhere, slowing down pawns, limiting their breathing and manipulation. Toxic smoke? Carbon monoxide? Breathing in hot air causing lung burns and heatstroke quickly?
Add more accidental and combat related fire and smoke generation and you have a massive reason to not pretend you are dwarves.
I understand what you're saying. It just reminds me of something else at the moment. However, I don't think that Rimworld should make the game a competitive race to the bottom with player characters guesstimating the collective net worth of contributions. I think it would lead to uncompetitive exoneration for economic crimes in the long-run.
Quote from: deslona on September 02, 2016, 07:45:41 PM
Also the first new mod would be a new building (well) that will infinately produce water. Which wouldn't really solve anything (my dwarfs people would still be happy in the mountain..)
I'd actually see a well in vanilla, but a well should have to be built on dirt and wells only provide X water/season (determined either by biome or just randomly on the map). Multiple wells don't really increase the amount of water available, just how quickly you can get it out of the ground.
Quote from: deslona on September 02, 2016, 07:45:41 PMI would like to see mechanics such as snow being melted to water, barrels to hold water and water collection. But I think this would detract from the 'fun' factor. Especially at the start of a game. A player would see their colonist spend most of thier time hauling water from A to B and that would be most of the activity for the day.
That's why I would suggest water as part of cooking rather than a separate need, you wouldn't need water for colonists until you're cooking foods.
In
most biomes you'd be able to grow crops outdoors without additional water. So only people that are rushing underground would need to worry about hauling water, which would just make it an additional consideration. Which is kind of the point there.
Quote from: deslona on September 02, 2016, 07:45:41 PMThis mechanic wouldn't 'force' players outside. It would just make them re-roll maps until they got 'mountain' + water outside mountain' which they would wall in for protection.
Sure it's not perfect by itself, but the idea isn't to make it perfect, just to encourage being outdoors as an easier option.
With new unstable build open colonies' flaws are more apparent than ever. It's way too easy to storm and raid a open enemy colony or settlement. Ironically, enemy suffers from open colonies way more than player does.
This isn't a necro is it?
I'm just going to keep saying what I always have. The way to fix the problem is not to keep nerfing mountain bases, it's to fix the problems with open ones. The problem with open colonies is the game lacks the means to defend yourself against what is thrown at you. There's just no way for an open colony of say, 20 pawns to protect against a siege of 80+ raiders. Between the mortars and the sheer amount of them, rip you.
Combat Realism helps with this a lot, honestly. It adds various new defensive structures, such as embrasures (Which are amazing.), new mounted guns, and parapets. Aside from that, combat is just better. Bullets are lethal and cover is amazing. A rapid fire gun into a crowd is very effective compared to vanilla.
Compared to vanilla, your best defensive structure is a sandbag, or sandbag + wall. It's terrible, it doesn't help against the huge raids you begin to face, and the what, 75% chance for a sandbag to absorb a bullet is quickly made irrelevant when you have 60 raiders shooting bullets. The only step up from here is to begin exploiting game mechanics and enemy AI, which is where killboxes in a mountain come in.
Then there's the mortars and (I could be wrong on this, they could've been removed) the pirate raids from space going through the roof. There's literally no way to defend against these without mods. You can't stop a mortar shell without dealing with the mortar itself, and then we come back to the problem of good enough defenses. Except this time you'll have none, so you're dealing with a siege where you're outnumbered 3:1 or worse. Or they're already in your base because drop pods.
Personally, I think the best solution to this would be to make mortars direct fire weapons, while adding new sorts of siege weapons in specifically to deal with mountain bases. The reason for this being, a direct fire weapon can be countered, even if for a limited time. You can build thick walls to defend against it, while you have your pawns try to deal with it. For an open base, it'll also be stuck to line of site, so you won't have to deal with a mortar behind a mountain ruining your life.
Then there's what it'll do to mountain bases. For one, it'll be able to hit them. The siege will be able to slowly chunk away at the mountain, eventually exposing the succulent interior of whatever you have inside. It might take some time, but the important thing is, there will be a counter (Because sappers suck dick, too.). Then, if somehow that fails, eventually raiders will start taking heavier siege weapons, which for balance reasons, will only be taken if there's a lot of "Overhead mountain" in areas you've built in, because at the end of the day, a mountain base will always be superior, so it's unfair that an open base has to deal with the same things it has to.