Messages

It would be nice to have an overview of what actions all the colonists are performing at a given time, ideally it would not pause the game when being observed also. Also any plans for a minimap at some point?

Don't use a killbox, if you exploit the AI then the game will be easy and boring.

Tynan has acknowledged killboxes as a legitimate strategy, hence the sappers in the upcoming update.

It can be legit and still exploit the limited AI. By building the killbox you are taking advantage of the fact the AI chooses the path of least resistance instead of finding ways to bypass it, building inside mountains is also legit but I think that also makes things really dull especially combined with the killboxes because what do you have to worry about ever? Not much really.

There is almost no point in even having raids in the game the way most people like to play imo, and if people enjoy it then no problem but I don't understand complaints about the game being dull when the same people negate everything that is a threat to your colony i.e sieges, raids, enemies dropping in the base etc. and build the same base design over and over again. It's up to the player to make the game interesting for himself and try new things.

Don't use a killbox, if you exploit the AI then the game will be easy and boring.

Thank you for your feedback. It looks like it is worth a purchase. I will wait until the next Alpha release.

Cheers.

There are a lot of mods that completely change the gameplay that are really fun and can be extremely hard also.

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.

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.

So how does it make any sense at all to remove or make turrets harder to build, do you honestly believe the change will stop you building an underground base and abusing the AI? 100% it will have the opposite effect and drive you underground quicker.

Making them harder to build or to remove them from the game on it's own wouldn't do much else, than to annoy players.
Look at this thread, look at other threads: You'll mostly find the impression, that living outside is impossible. The first few pages of the "How to ..." thread are a sequence of, "Would love to, but it's impossible statements." You know better, you play in the open, I know better, Mikhail knows better, Akala and stefanstr would love to leave the mountains as would others. Thus the question of how can turrets be redesigned to offer more deployment options than a killbox setup. Killboxes hamstring opponents and players alike and offer a repetitive gameplay. They have severe drawbacks that limit their usability as a perimeter defense for open world gameplay. You'll most probably have a perimeter wall with guarded gates to allow easy access to and fro your colony. But turreted gatehouses are just a killbox-in-disquise. It's still an artificial choke point with turrets pointing at it. Let's think of more choices than to build medieval castles, town walls or a Dwarf Fortress (there's an entire game dedicated to it, there's no need to clone it "with graphics"). Momentarily, the only vanilla defense option you got aside from civilian militia, is the turret. The charge was removed limiting designs and thus most players will try to think of ways to maximize their turret deployment.
I think we have stated a lot of good reasons, why turrets are flawed in this thread. We've pointed to things that might open up new possibilities and possibilities is what's needed.

Anarak is right, when he asks for more variety in gameplay options and in goals to achieve. Looking at a map, with distinct features, localized advantages or general disadvantages would lead to every game playing out differently. One time you'd build a town, another time a fortress and in the cold wastes of the north you dwarf your way to riches, cause there ain't much else to be done. I'd be interested in the current statistics where most players chose their starting position to be at. I wouldn't be surprised if well over half of them would head straight for mountain and another chunk for large hills.
That's not variety and it offers no adaptation, because most games play out the same anyway. One player needs heavily fortified turrets for his killbox, while the next one would need light, mobile turrets for his perimeter defense. With the current turret and its singular application only one of both will get what he needs and the other one is required to do the same. For lack of an alternative he'll build a killbox or somesuch derivative.
How do you defend your open colonies?

Welcome to Ellis (challenging Cassandra)! You'll see no turrets or perimeter wall, because they are inapplicable for my situation and game goal. Most enemies are routed or killed before the even reach me.

I agree with everything you say, they are good point's. The problem is though that the majority of players that want to change turrets don't seem to be willing to try new tactics and experiment with open colonies. So the question is... would changing anything, change anything?

[assume]

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.

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.

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.

Manned pillboxes, to give colonists a chance to defend with all the different weapons in the game without dying instantly.

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.

What Mikhail said.

If the reasons provided don't make sense to you, I have no problem with that. People tend to disagree and that is fine. You can try and convince us why our reasons don't make sense. So far, none of your counter arguments made sense to me.

You need to expand on why my counter argument's don't make sense to you.

The problem is that the game becomes a tower defence game, with very little emphasis on the colonist, other then to be there to build and repair turrets.

My colonists have stories, stats and attribute. They are what is mean to be the focus and driver of the 'story' and gameplay. Currently the way the game plays out, I may as well name every colony 'Turretworld'.

You say it is up to the player to not explot the AI. I say it is up to the game to not be explotable. At least so so basically and and straight forward. What am I mean to do? Intentionally build my turrets so that they aren't as effective as I can make them?

Exploits are only a problem in multiplayer games, because it gives players an advantage over other's by abusing exploits. In a single player game though it does not matter at all. If you really have a problem with killboxes being overpowered then just don't make them, it is that simple. For people like me who want to play open colonies how the hell am I supposed to defend a colony without any turret's?

The problem with your argument is that you're saying you feel like you have to build underground and use killboxes, because you don't feel like you have the choice to play any other style. So how does it make any sense at all to remove or make turrets harder to build, do you honestly believe the change will stop you building an underground base and abusing the AI? 100% it will have the opposite effect and drive you underground quicker.

...and yes it is totally fine and quite fun to impose limits on yourself when playing through a game like this.

There is literally nothing to discuss on turrets, they are not broken so stop ignoring this and stop trying to think how to change them.

Thanks jaeden for enlightening us, ignorants! We were lost without your guidance. Please, show us your magnanimity and present us with a list of jaeden-approved topics that have something valuable to discuss. I will personally ask the moderators to pin it to the top of the forums so that no one makes our mistake ever again!

Sorry that you feel that way, but, can you tell what the problem actually is with turrets? because nobody, as far as I have seen has come up with a reason that actually makes sense. Killboxes do not count as a reason because you have the choice to not make one, it's completely up to the player if they want to abuse the AI.

Changing turrets doesn't solve any problem in the game. Stop trying to change turrets because of killboxes, people won't stop making them even if you remove turrets and so what if they make them, why do you care? You don't have to make them.

There is literally nothing to discuss on turrets, they are not broken so stop ignoring this and stop trying to think how to change them.