Ludeon Forums

Ludeon Forums

  • December 02, 2022, 06:18:31 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

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.

Messages - ApexPredator

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
Ideas / Re: Tech merchant ships and construction kits
« on: February 06, 2014, 06:29:00 PM »
I'd love to see something like this implemented. Something like power should be a primary concern for colonists and just being able to plop down more generators as needed blunts that somewhat. If important structures were one-shot kits that you can't always assume you'll be able to get your hands on, you'd have to make some really tough choices about what you need; harvest doesn't look too good, you were going to buy food, but ack he's got a geothermal kit, that's the first one you've seen all game. I guess the people can go hungry until you finally have enough power to run that hydro operation...

Your explanation is how I was seeing this idea explained and its value to game play.

General Discussion / Re: Stockpile Issues
« on: February 06, 2014, 09:04:50 AM »

In perfect scenario, trading system would account for things you have on normal stockpiles, and upon trade, colonists would automatically get a high-priority order to get goods on the pad - and you would get your part only after they are finished.

Galileus has the right idea here.

Ideas / Re: Tech merchant ships and construction kits
« on: February 06, 2014, 01:37:26 AM »
What if the CK you need isn't there? This would cause a big ass problem. SO NO! I will not wait 3 weeks for 1 BP that we need.

This is a great idea that will make it so that you have to change your play style in order to accommodate the resources you have. I would expect any item you would "need" would be provided, all others are luxuries.

Ideas / Re: A way to make blast charges much less OP.
« on: February 05, 2014, 07:23:29 PM »
1) This is not an option. As long as charging blasters are in game, they do affect game balance. New players will be bored by how easy the defence is and will balme - and rightfuly so - the design. Or the game, more likely. If they game is balanced around defences with BC, their usage will become more or less obligatory.
2) This only nerfs outside bases while keeping undergrounds and funneling unchanged.
3) This does not address issue at hand in any way.
4) This is actually a resolution to the problem.
5) This is just an awful idea. It makes no sense whatsoever, it makes BC useless and heavily random in effect and is simply a bad design. It would need to be really heavily explained to the player, and if you need to do that for something so small, you've failed in your design. If it's not explained properly, players won't know what hit them and will blame - again, rightfuly so - the game. It's counter intuitive, unfair and punishing. It's simply really, really bad idea.

All in all #4 is the best of mentioned if you want to fix the BCs problem. #5 is best, if you want to get rid of BCs problem and half of your players at the same time.

To your responses:
1) Really? Not an option? I just proved it with my game play. My hand wasn’t shaking at all either when I was choosing what to research.
2) Are BC so important to your game that you will funnel raiders into your base just to use them?
3) In the amount of time it takes someone to go get metal and build a BC then clear the area and set it off I could have had one person mine out the equal amount if not more. There is no reason to use them to blast rock when they only take a few blocks. Maybe if there were some blocks that you could not mine then maybe.
4) Removal because the average user can’t control themselves is a sad “resolution”. Maybe remove the damage they do to col/raiders.
5) Clearly this was a joke.

Ideas / Re: A way to make blast charges much less OP.
« on: February 05, 2014, 06:45:00 PM »
Right now blast charges kill everything and makes it impossible for raiders to attack properly. Right now, here is what I propose to nerf these blast charges.

I just played for a few hours and I got raided a bunch of times. Out of all of those raids not one raider was killed by a blasting charge, weird....

I have a few fix ideas:
1) Users, stop using them as defense
2) Since 1 is too complicated, if its programmable??? only allow them to be placed under mountains/in caves
3) make them clear more than a few blocks of rock so they become worth while for their intended purpose
4) delete them
5) If possible program them so any raider damage taken from BC also damages equal number and effect to colonists. Would love to see the forums if Tynan snuck something like this in an update.

Ideas / Re: Clothing system
« on: February 05, 2014, 06:34:43 PM »
I have read that armor is in the works and you will be able to use skins/hides from animals too. I do not know if "seasons" or temperatures will be added. I am feeling a don't starve feel to this idea and could see how it could affect the game as long as winter/summer cycles were slow. My RMB is already sad at the idea of dressing my colonists.

Ideas / Re: Tech merchant ships and construction kits
« on: February 05, 2014, 06:30:17 PM »

General Discussion / Re: Mortar Teams
« on: February 05, 2014, 04:08:50 PM »
Just three things that I need to add into this thread.
1. The accuracy of the mortars should be a circle of about 20 blocks.  Perhaps between 15 to 25. (Semi-realistic, realism is a bad argument. I am a dumbass.)
2. Light mortars (60-80mm) tend to have quite good RoF (18-20 RPM), however due to balancing issues it should be low. Perhaps because the raiders have a scarce supply of grenades due to the fact that they are quite heavy to carry and transport and thusly fire only on "important targets". You know, not to waste the rare fire support.
3. Mortars need spotting. Even though the mortar team can spot and destroy targets by them selves, they should usually rely on someone nearby to provide them targets, a fire director. The mortars should be able to fire blindly into your colony, however without being actually able to target turrets or other facilities. With a raider nearby, they could zero in on spesific targets of priority. Killing the spotter would naturally remove this option. (Even though the raider mortar team would still have the coordinates of static targets.)

Having a crew and spotter seems a little much for this game currently. I could understand a two person team for a single mortar but would not be upset if it was a single raider. I would expect the raiders to have similar tactics to what we are facing in Afghanistan. One or two raiders on a mountain that is within range of the base, set up, quickly fire off all the rounds they brought with them in the general direction of the base and retreat before the base sends someone to take them out. This is a crude but somewhat effective method to disrupting operations with a very low kill success rate.

I usually set up my cols in different formations depending on what the attack looks like and my current base set up; however, with a raider mortar team in the mix it maybe a gamble for us to send soft targets indoors until the barrage is over or leave them out and possibly loose a few cols. If you pull in the cols it will allow a raider advance without much resistance but should keep them safe from mortars.

General Discussion / Re: Help want to get rid of grenades!
« on: February 05, 2014, 03:52:39 PM »
Am i the only one that simply doesnt use molotovs and frag grenades at all when fighting raiders, personally i just count them as too much of a hazard to the colonists around them.

I am with you on this one. They all go to the launch pad for me. Sometimes I will use molotovs to burn a stack of raiders after a large attack.

General Discussion / Re: Help want to get rid of grenades!
« on: February 03, 2014, 08:19:55 PM »
I have never had a problem with grenades. The only weapon I do not like to see on a raider is a M24.

Ideas / Re: New map / re-roll seed option
« on: February 03, 2014, 06:58:56 PM »
I would have to disagree with this. Re-rolling for an hour is to negate randomness.

Right and wrong. True, you can negate randomness if you work hard enough on it. False, it does not mean there is no randomness. Otherwise you state, that as of now there is no randomness at all in RimWorld - as you can save scam or start new games all the time to get the roll you want.

I have optimum map traits that fit my current "best" style of play but if my map does not have mountains similar to how I like them then it will force me to adapt and make on the fly changes to my tactics which increases the difficulty and makes the game more fun.

It can make the game more fun it does not make the game more fun. It's not a quantifiable quality. Not only this can work as a double edged sword - you can get real bad roll or you are simply bored of that type of map - but also is massively subjective.

Randomness does not always mean better and harder - for me it's quite the opposite. As of now, map gen creates a ton of really dull, boring and easy maps, with huge underground next to you where you can fit everything you ever want and no interesting terrain features. It's harder and more fun to get that one different map, that makes the game feel fresh and new.

Negate is not the same as no, of course there will still be randomness to the game no matter how many times you re-roll. However, the start of every story is a spaceship crash on a random planet with random members of your old crew. If you get to choose who survives from said crash and where that crash happens it reduces the randomness of the game.

I also disagree with you that randomness of a game like this makes it better and harder. Say Tynan decided instead of a randomized map and crew each game, the same 3 survivors always landed on the same map… every single game. This would reduce the replay value greatly for a game like this. Usually when a gamer finds an optimum way to play a game they get in a hole and continue to play it that way, then it becomes boring and the move on to the next game. A perfect example of this is blasting charges. Tynan is not making people use them as a defensive tool but on the first page of the forums there are a few suggestions on how to reduce their effectiveness against raiders or topics of people that say that blasting charges are making the game too easy. People are suggesting that the creator of the game reduce the effectiveness of an item that they are not using for the intended purpose because it is lowering their enjoyment level. This shows that there are some gamers that have identified a problem with a game that they as the user have created and would rather remove or change the item than using it for its intended purpose.

A great thing about games is we can play them as we see fit to match our personal play style. Galileus, you and I clearly have different tastes in where we draw our enjoyment in a game from. However, I am with you that this function would be useful for people who like to start with a setup they are comfortable with, I just don’t see it as staying true to the creators intent for the game. Hopefully Tynan will chime in.

Ideas / Re: New map / re-roll seed option
« on: February 03, 2014, 05:58:53 PM »
Re-rolls do not negate randomness.

I would have to disagree with this. Re-rolling for an hour is to negate randomness. If my first set of cols have two guys that can only fight fires, shoot, and do research 99% of people will back out and get a new set as that would make for a really slow/hard start to a colony, but it may create a great story that the world will probably never hear about. I have optimum map traits that fit my current "best" style of play but if my map does not have mountains similar to how I like them then it will force me to adapt and make on the fly changes to my tactics which increases the difficulty and makes the game more fun.

I do think when traits are in the game this may change this dynamic or my view on re-rolling as some of them seem pretty serious.

Ideas / Re: Your Cheapest Ideas
« on: February 03, 2014, 05:44:46 PM »
So far, equipping  a specified weapon has been easy, but I haven't been able to figure out a way to say "go put your Lee Enfield rifle back in equipment slot where you found it", etc.

Select and right click him to make him drop it on the spot. Select and right-click the equipment rack to make him deposit it there. Unless there's a bug, these should work.

I usually just right click on the equipment rack with the person already selected and click "store pistol in equipment rack". It would be nice in the future to reduce micro managing if weapons could have assignments like beds or some way that they would know to suit up for battle without me having to click every person and choose what gun to pick up individually.

Ideas / Re: Deterring Attacks
« on: February 02, 2014, 03:57:10 PM »

1) Paying passing bounty hunters or mercenaries to go 'deal with them' preemptively. This could be a merchant ship type, or a wandering character type.

This just gave me an image of my radio man running to the com panel and calling the combat trader in orbit. “We got a few raiders that just showed up east of the mountain range, already got some silver on the launch pad, light em up”. 30 seconds later there are a few explosions at the raider’s location and there are bodies all over the desert with one raider rolling around on the ground bleeding out trying to figure out what happened. Clearly an over powered idea but it made me laugh a little, thanks. 

General Discussion / Re: These farming vessels....
« on: February 02, 2014, 03:29:54 AM »
In my experience I get farmers 50-60% of the time while industrial 20-30%, combat around 5-7% and slavers 3-5%

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8