turret raid spawn increase?

[keylocke]

Currently the storyteller estimates strength based on this core formula:

ColonistCount + 0.4*TurretCount

So if you lost a colonist, and build two more turrets, the AI will regard you as weaker than if nothing had happened.

Note that strength isn't translated directly into raider composition. Other factors are applied, including random variance and colony age, differently per storyteller.

thanks for the info tynan. 

anyways, what are the different formulas per storyteller?

ie : cassandra classic compared to tough cleopatra, how is colony age and colony strength used differently to spawn raiders between the two? the descriptions in the AI selection menu could use more details available to the player. ie :

-what's the average pop cap for each storyteller AI. (this is important in figuring out who to recruit and who to sell to slave ships, instead of waiting for months for a new captured raider or slave ships that never arrive anymore due to pop cap)
-what's the ratio of colony strength & age compared to raider spawn strength. (this is important to know to help the players pace their defense based on colony age)
-what's the frequency of bane vs boon events (ie: resource drops, psycho animals, solar flares etc..) for each AI
-and so on and so forth.

things like : "cassandra classic's less forgiving cousin" isn't very informative. 
there should be an option to scroll down and see further details so people can figure out what storyteller AI is better suited to them, rather than having to guess.

[AlexxKay]

I've been overwhelmed by raiders a lot lately, and eventually found this thread.  I have a few comments.

Firstly, the game explicitly tells you to "build defenses".  It does *not* advise you to boost your colonist's shooting skills (nor tell you how to do so), nor does it suggest (or instruct) on building defensive walls.  The only thing the game explicitly encourages for defense is Turrets.

If the player isn't thinking about walls (which I wasn't), then they tend to place their turrets in a loose circle around the base.  After all, I don't know where the enemy will attack from.  This means that only about 30% turrets actually fire in any given battle (unless things *really* go south).  Yet the game is still calculating my 'strength' based on the full number of turrets.

Perhaps this is really a *training* issue?  If I *knew* that I was expected to use few turrets, supported by walls, then I might have fared better.

[keylocke]

perhaps the formula to calculate the raider strength should include battle statistics. ie:

-how many people are incapacitated during the previous battle
-how many turrets were "active" during the previous battle.

so maybe something like this :

raider strength = (total colonists - incapacitated colonists) + (0.4 * active turrets) + (colony worth/colony age)

(edit 2: i changed the formula a bit to include colony age to reflect the sudden influx of wealth that comes from trade as compared to gradual accumulation of wealth over time.)

---------

explanation :

-subtracting incapacitated colonist from total colonists, means that raider spawns will be based only on the number of colonists who can actually fight.

-calculating raider strength based only on "activated" turrets during the previous battle rather than total number of turrets, means that players can spread their turret around their base without increasing raider spawns. which should give players more flexibility when designing their base (edit: what i meant by "activated" was the turrets that raiders have encountered during the previous battle)
(ie: if the raiders attacked from the north and encountered 2 turrets, then they will calculate  the next raider strength based on 2 turrets. if the raiders attack from the south which has 18 turrets, then the next raider strength will be based on 18 turrets. it is better to do this than calculate raider strength based on 20 turrets, which doesn't take into account turret placement)

-using colony "worth" (total worth of items built or collected within the home zone and stockpiles) rather than colony age in raider spawn calculation, means that players can play at their own pace without worrying about a doomsday clock hanging over their heads.

-----------

-anyways, colony "worth" should also affect the population cap to balance out the increase of raider spawns, so the end game doesn't become a slow death sentence and the player can keep their preferred game pace.

-the player should balance out the risk of increasing raider strength to the possibility of gaining new recruits with a higher pop cap. so it becomes a rewards vs risks issue.

[AlexxKay]

Currently the storyteller estimates strength based on this core formula:

ColonistCount + 0.4*TurretCount

So if you lost a colonist, and build two more turrets, the AI will regard you as weaker than if nothing had happened.

Note that strength isn't translated directly into raider composition. Other factors are applied, including random variance and colony age, differently per storyteller.

I've been thinking about this some.  You seem to be implying that most (all?) storytellers currently make the raiders tougher as the colony gets more successful.  As a player, that's not what I'm looking for.  I like there to be *some* threat, but I want to be able to manage the threat level myself. 

An example of a game that gets this perfect is Minecraft's survival mode.  You have to beware of Creepers wandering around in the morning, and underground explorations need to be cautious, but if you *are* patient and cautious, there's almost no risk of dying.  Conversely, if/when you get impatient, and find yourself in a dangerous position, it's immediately clear how it's your own fault for being careless.

I've never played with Phoebe Friendly, because I don't want to turn off raiders altogether.  But my (current) experience of Chill Callie Classic is that things do keep getting tougher until I eventually succumb.  Her curve may be shallower than Cassandra's, but (seems to be) still the same basic *shape*.  I'd like to have a storyteller available that had a cap for the 'ambient raider level', so I'd still have raiders to deal with, but at a level I knew I could manage.  (It would be cool if I could, either deliberately or carelessly, trigger a bigger-than-usual raid, but that sounds like a post-Alpha feature.)

[vagineer1]

If the problem is that turrets are too effective when spammed

Yep.

I'm going to decouple this by varying raider tactics. Specifically, they'll use artillery so you have to come get them on the map if you don't want to get pounded to dust.

My strategy for the Sieges (When they come out of course) is to have my own Mortar supported by a Colonist with a high shooting skill to attack the raider encampment before they have a chance to ready their own mortar.

[ShivaFang]

ColonistCount + 0.4*TurretCount

Is this formula used for 'psychic waves' too?  It seems to me the more turrets I have the more squirrels come in a wave (which is flat out stupid since turrets will not target squirrels)  I pretty much always lose to being zerged by squirrels and I haven't figured out an effective way to deal with them other than reloading the save 2 saves before and hoping that the RNG doesn't pick squirrels again =(

Other than that, I pretty much agree with exactly what AlexxKay wrote two posts above me.

[ShivaFang]

I *really* like the idea of staggering it based on how many colonists and turrets were lost vs how many raiders were killed.  Maybe use the #colonists + 0.4*#turrets as a baseline and then the storyteller can adjust this baseline based on how effective each wave was.

[AlexxKay]

... there're expert & casual players, so the only thing we can watch for are the result of each battle to decide the next.

Quoting for emphasis, as I think this is a VERY important insight.