Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - Teiwaz

#1
Bugs / Colonist friendly fire
June 02, 2014, 01:23:58 AM
This one is sort of on the line of "bug" and "feature request," but it's having a very negative impact on my play so I'm putting it here.

Colonists don't seem to understand that it is a bad idea to open up with a chaingun at an injured friend who is in a fistfight with a squirrel. When I'm fighting tribals or psychotic animals, I often lose more colonists to the reckless spray of bullets from other colonists than I do raiders. I'm having to micromanage every target selected, and big fights grind to a halt as I pause every few seconds to make sure that one of my guys didn't pick a target on the other side of a bunch of friends.

It doesn't seem like it'd be a huge deal to work likelihood of hitting friends into target selection or whether a colonist decides to fire at all or not. In the long run, it'd be neat if this was affected by traits, personalities, and even maybe colonist relationships. But for now I'd just be happy to have them not shoot each other, at least not automatically. (Manual fire orders should probably override this.)
#2
Ideas / Workaholics, and happiness vs fear.
November 07, 2013, 02:20:10 AM
Just another thought form my last couple days of playing:

It would be nice if colonists took care of their happiness in the same way that they do their other needs. There have been a couple times where my colonists, especially when working on major excavations, have worked themselves to near mental breaks because they won't take time off from environments that they hate until they have to go eat or sleep. I end up having to disable their mining job entirely to get them to go have a rest or do something they like more, such as farming. I don't think I should have to micromanage job settings minute to minute like this, it doesn't seem like that is the intended use of the jobs screen, correct?

However, I'd suggest that they only take breaks on their own if their fear level isn't enough to keep them loyal. This way, if you're running a horrible slave colony where everyone is loyal through fear, they'll work harder and be miserable. But if they're there because they're happy there, they should be more free to take breaks when they get unhappy from working too much.
#3
Ideas / Difficulty curve tweaks
November 07, 2013, 02:04:54 AM
I just wanted to share my thoughts about the difficulty curve. (Most of my experience has been Cassandra classic)

It seems like Cassandra does a fairly linear ramp up in difficulty. Part of the fatigue of fighting her is that every attack is a nasty one, and usually tougher than the one before. I'd suggest, rather than a linear progression, a more of a short geometric increase to a climax, followed by a sudden drop in difficulty which then builds again towards another local climax, with a linearly increasing overall difficulty. Like so:


(I'd actually rotate the graph 180o, this was just the closest thing I could find to the right shape. The time between minimum and maximum should increase as the game progresses, as should the difference in difficulty between the starting low difficulty and the climax difficulty.)

This is the classic game difficulty curve, and the AI directors should be trying to replicate it. (They may be already, but if so, it needs to be more pronounced.)

The other thing I'd suggest is made possible by moving to this pattern. Right now, it appears that the difficulty of Cassandra's raids are tied directly to some combination of the player's military strength and the time elapsed. I've run games where I've built a lot of turrets, and I always get more enemies faster in a pretty direct relationship to the defenses I build.

The problem is that the number of colonists and turrets aren't a great measure of how defendable a base is. An underground colony with one way in and which has 6 turrets is hugely different from a colony out in the open in the middle of the map with 6 turrets. Additionally, the relationship seems clear enough that I sometimes avoid building lots of turrets in order to keep the raids easier, which seems wrong.

What I'd suggest, is to use earlier, small raids to evaluate the defenses. During a raid, track how much damage the raiders cause, and the number of colonists they kill, and use that to inform the strength of the next wave (rather than how many defenses are there at the start of the attack.) If the player beats off the raiders with no problems, send a stronger wave next time. But if they suffer a lot of losses, don't ramp back slightly, do a full reset back to small waves and then build up again. However, at some point, the player should be able to "beat" a major raid, and cause it to reset and get a breather even if they kick its butt. Think of each of those climbs in difficulty like a campaign - a slow start, probing attacks, build to a big attack which pushes the player to their limit (based on their performance in the probing attacks) and then pull all the way back to give a breather and room for the next buildup. I'd also put a significantly longer period with no attacks at all between the crescendo attack and the start of minor raids again. This will help get away from the "war of attrition" that Cassandra inflicts on you currently, where the raiders seem more like tower defense enemies than people showing up to try and take your stuff where every attack is unusual and kind of a big deal.

One last note. It'd be nice if the raiders actually had an objective. Like, if they were trying to get to your stockpiles and will steal resources, or loot your weapons lockers, and would then leave when they manage that rather than just being bent on genocide like they are now. You should be able to lose a raid, and pick up the pieces with the survivors, because they're after your stuff, not after your colonists. (Unless they're slavers, in which case they shouldn't be shooting everyone. Nonlethal weapons would be nice.) This has happened to me once or twice while playing, but it always feels like it was more a matter of a timer going off or the AI having issues pathfinding to my survivors than the raiders actually having accomplished their objective and leaving. (The message says something like "the raiders have given up and are going home," which implies it's not "the raiders have what they came for and are going home.")

I'm really liking this so far, though. This game has a huge amount of potential.
#4
I'm finding the classic AI director's constant swarms of raiders unfun, but the friendly director is just a bore. Has anyone found a way to change the AI director, by editing the savegame, or something? I'd love to build an established colony in friendly and then sic swarms of raiders on it with a classic-hard director.
#5
Ideas / AI Director between friendly and classic.
November 06, 2013, 10:42:22 PM
I'm finding that Classic is too grueling for long-term play. (Attacks get nearly constant after a few hours, and the game end up playing more like tower defense than a town builder). However, friendly is just boring - attacks never seem to get tougher than 3 raiders and they hardly ever attack.

I'd like an AI director between Classic and Friendly. Closer to Classic than Friendly, but significantly slower than Classic, which gets silly. Right now that's just a huge gap, and I want to play somewhere in the middle of it.