Turrets overestimated by storyteller

[ShadowDragon8685]

I would be furiously angry if turrets were kicked from the game. Some people - Gallius primarily - are convinced that the ideal RimWorld gameplay experience should involve constant colonist losses.

I disagree. Most strenuously. In fact, it is hard to fully articulate the degree to which I disagree without going into full-fledged personal-attacks mode, so suffice to say my disagreement is vehement and furious. I like turrets. Primarily, I like them because they soak up fire, as they're otherwise basically useless in a fight unless spammed to a ridiculous degree.

As the OP says, the Storyteller drastically overestimates the importance and efficacy of a turret. They're hilariously inaccurate, even when firing at a target running straight at them over open terrain, they fire a pitiful handful of rounds before taking forever to fire again, they don't seem to benefit from sandbag cover, they're four times the size of a colonist, thus making some attacks that would otherwise "miss" still be a hit because they randomly scatter onto another square of the turret*, they don't seem to benefit much, if at all, from being in darkness, and they blow up like a goddamn demo charge when destroyed, because clearly they're made of explodium.

But they draw fire away from my colonists. That's the most important thing of all.

*I'm admittedly not privy to the combat code so I can't say for sure this is the case, but given how hilariously short-lived turrets are in a fight compared to a colonist, despite having 40% more HP than a colonist, I believe this is the case.

[Galileus]

The real problem is less about game mechanics and more of the depth of player interaction surrounding the game.  Tynan wants to see more focus on the combat system because he spent years developing a tactical combat engine.  Anyone that doesn't recognize at least that much is giving him a swift punch to the face.  The fact that so many players chose to abandon the tactical combat and opt for a turret defense gaming experience is extraordinarily insulting to someone who spent so much time and effort making the game.  At the same time, trying to place blame on those players for playing in the most efficient way possible is also distasteful.

A game that is truly great is one that allows multiple playstyles to coexist, like in Minecraft or Team Fortress 2.  Making an entire portion of the game redundant or totally removed simply to force players to play the way that you want them to play is a design for a gaming disaster.

You got it wrong - no-one is trying to blame players for playing turret defence. The fact that they play turret defence while they shouldn't be is clearly Tynan's fault. It's developers fault if game fails telegraph it's intended gameplay - and it's exactly what happened here.

And it's true that removing a whole portion of game, having redundant choices or single choices is a design disaster. And this disaster is named "turrets". It removes the whole portion of game (tactical engine) making it redundant, it lures player to use only one possible solution to a problem and fails to present him with other options. As is now, almost no-one tries to play without turrets out of his own. THIS is the design disaster you were talking about.

The fact that so many players opt out of tactical combat is not an "insult" to Tynan. They don't make an educated choice - hey, turrets are more fun! That was proven already, many players found no-turrets plays to be extremely amazing only after trying. But the game doesn't give the player chance to experience it - it naturally pushes him into turret defence gameplay. It's simply much more effective - why would anyone want to try tactical combat? That's exactly what you was talking about - game design that forces player to choose one option without considering another.

[Goo Poni]

As a single player game focusing on helping a (generally small) group of colonists survive, what is the ideal gameplay?
Is this the part where you're gonna tell me how to play a single player game, better yet a single player game like Rimworld where it's basically "here's your colonists, here's the tools to help them, good luck"?

I don't see a problem with turrets removing all tactical elements from the game. They have crap accuracy, a single grenade is typically enough to cause ammo detonation, said detonation destroys everything within a couple blocks of them and is enough to knock out or otherwise kill colonists, they take an ice age to fire another burst.

I would prefer to see turrets expanded upon. Starting with that crap which everyone begins with and through research, grow them into something that's very capable. I'd like to see the ability to "sacrifice" weapons to them. Say, put an M16 into a turret, giving it burst fire and increased accuracy and range over the stock turret (which would be equivalent to a pistol with better range). However the M16 is no longer available for use and removing it from the turret destroys it while downgrading the turret back to the basic form. They cost so much and are so fragile. The metal for two turrets could be used to create a much more effective defensive wall or to build a "waffle".
However, I'm not the game dev.

Everyone seems to have a problem with the "waffle", but I don't know why. If it makes the game easy peasy, it takes only a couple seconds for you to select sell and remove your waffle. I use a waffle because some form of crowd control is seriously needed once you've survived a couple months because the raiders will have a massive numbers advantage and that needs to be eliminated or else they can easily roll over you. With later raider waves typically having a large sniping division with 5-6 raiders equipped with M-24s against your 10-12 colonists not to mention the other 15 raiders with assorted pistols, M16s, grenades and molotovs, trying to mount a defense outside is also a way for raiders to easily roll over you.

[Galileus]

I don't see a problem with turrets removing all tactical elements from the game.

I've addressed this soooo many times I simply won't repeat myself at this point. It's a shot in the foot. No.

You say - what's the problem? If you don't like it, don't use it. Well, addressed that one also oh so many times. Allowing existence of god-hand mechanics is not giving player a choice, it's taking it away from him.

Everyone seems to have a problem with the "waffle", but I don't know why. If it makes the game easy peasy, it takes only a couple seconds for you to select sell and remove your waffle.

That kind of mentality is a huge problem. Your whole post is based on that mentality - if you don't like it, don't use it. Welp, wrong. The whole game needs to be balanced around that cheesy mechanic you decide that should stay. And balancing around a cheesy mechanic that - as you say - makes it easy peasy is oh SO bad idea!

Gamers who don't want the game to be easy have no option. After all the game is already balanced for use of these kill-traps. So, you can forcibly handicap yourself - and have this awesomely BAD feeling that devs directed this game at children and it is not for you. Or you simply can't play it - because it was balanced around god-hand mechanics and without using them you simply loose.

What is left from the equation? If you remove god-hand mechanics, players who want the game hard can play on hard, players who want it on easy can play it on easy. If they stay? Everyone is forced to play on easy. Or not play, because handicapping oneself to be able to play enjoyable game is... not enjoyable.

It is simple. Turrets and blasting charges as a hand of god can NOT stay in game. And it's not even matter of personal preference. No-one is forcing anyone by removing them - you're forcing people by letting them stay!

[CmdrQuartz]

And then comes the part where I don't understand the problem of the "don't like it, don't use it" mentality. It happens EVERYWHERE. Tons of games with people declaring this or that is bad or making artificial difficulty for themselves. And even in this game people do that. Can't make a mountain home, can't use steam power, can't use hydroponics. This game, and many others, are what the gamer CHOOSES to make of it and more options are better than none. Only the most truly game breaking of options should be eliminated. People are notoriously good at making their own fun so just give them the tools and don't tell them how to play just let them figure it out on their own.

*edit*
And as for them never figuring out another way to play because of the existence of tools I'd call you a fool. They will either be completely happy with what they have or they will seek out ways to make it better. I suppose I can't speak for everyone but before tossing a game away completely I look to see if I can change what's bugging me or if I'm missing something.

*edit2*
By truly game breaking I would include things like waffles and placing demo charges in front of a door. Though having a narrow corridor to walk down lined with explosives isn't exactly an illegitimate strategy nor would be having a turret kill zone, these are things people would do (and fall for) in real life and while no one wants a completely real game such things seem reasonable enough to me *shrug*

[Galileus]

Did you... did you even... I know I addressed the learning curve problem few times, but this was long ago, like 3-4 posts earlier, but... did you read what I just wrote? Turrets and blasting charges are a god-hand mechanics, you use them you win, this is a game breaking mechanic! And if you have game breaking mechanic, players will never figure out on their own their own playstyles, because for 90% of them there will be no playstyles! You drop down 99/99 turret with funnel on turn one, and gg, bb. Then you throw down 999/999 blasting charges down, and gg, bb.

Most players won't be messing around with sticks and stones if you give them a nuke right out of the gate! And this has to be 100th time I try to explain it! This is a DISASTROUS game design, and you're going to loose A LOT of players to it!

You know what is the best game I ever played? Devil May Cry 3. Do you know what I did when I beat it? I played on harder and harder modes. For HUNDREDS of hours. Do you know what me and 99% of other players would do with it if it gave you full upgrades out of the gate? Threw it out of the window. As I did with Deadpool, by the way - and this is the "why try anything else when you can stunlock/kill everything right now" example. Why try anything else? It's boring and easy as it is, why try to find other most probably boring and easy ways to kill enemies?

And as for them never figuring out another way to play because of the existence of tools I'd call you a fool.

Or you could actually answer the whole thing with learning curve and players sticking to known and working strategies. But I guess calling me a fool suits you better. This is the "your face looks stupid!" card. Great for social events and discussions. Well played >.<

I also appreciate you added that AFTER I replied to your post. Real classy of you :/

[Tynan]

The game will continue to be refined and redesigned. The current batch of degenerate turret and blasting charge strategies will no longer effortlessly win every fight (though they will still be useful in some cases, of course).

Don't worry guys - the current state of affairs is only temporary. When the pre-alpha came out I probably had about 10-15 hours of decent playtest data from realistic players to work from, total. Since then, the community has put a thousand times more time into finding optimal ways to beat the game, especially in late-game scenarios past the 4 hour mark that I never tested at all. Nobody should be surprised that they found a couple of degenerate strategies. This is all part of the development process.

I also think it'd be cool if we could keep the discussions chilled-out all around. It's the Internet... and we all know how pointless Internet disagreements are.

[Jacob/Lee]

Turrets become almost totally useless very quickly, at least in my experience. A couple of raiders armed with pistols can slag a turret by themselves with maybe one of them being killed, and after that they just become short-term bullet magnets. Especially when the raiders pack multiple M24s per attack, then it just becomes hilarious. I use one or two in the early game when colonists are in short supply, then scrap them and go with a nearly full-colonist defense aside from some minefields placed in spots I can't spare the soldiers to cover in a fight. If you're going for how long you can survive, by day 200 Cassandra Classic will be sending gargantuan mobs of raiders armed with M16s and M24s that will break any colony in half, so I like to use a bunch of bombs to thin out the hordes before we clash.

When I first played this game, my first multi-raider attack had me going "Holy shit! This is amazing! They spread out and take cover tactically!" The enemy AI and cover system is something you won't see in many base-builders like this, for sure. I like it a lot, and my bases make good spots for pump shotguns and fistfights. Turrets, with their scrap cost, range that is useless against later raiders, and the amount you can fit in a space before they start blowing each other up, aren't terribly helpful. Bombs are something else, though, since it takes two to kill 10+ raiders for 70 scrap.

[Galileus]

Turrets become almost totally useless very quickly, at least in my experience. A couple of raiders armed with pistols can slag a turret by themselves with maybe one of them being killed, and after that they just become short-term bullet magnets.

Everyone starts with this But you learn quickly how to use them with combination with terrain and cover to be real beastly. And that was the problem. My personal record was three turrets taking on ~18 raiders with only one of them blowing up.

But turrets NOT being removed, but not being a god-hand strategy as well? That should make everyone happy. I do know it does make me happy!

[CmdrQuartz]

See this is what I think we on the turret side were trying to convey, we don't want an instant win button either, we just want a legitimate strategy revolving around turrets that takes time and effort to accomplish that will keep our precious colonists a bit more out of harms way, which stops them from seeing a lot of dead bodies a fairly bad happiness reducer. Of course there's bound to be "malfunctions" that cause trouble and stuff. I can't convey all my ideas here but I hope it can be realized that such strategies can be just as rewarding and interactive if done right.

[Goo Poni]

Turrets become almost totally useless very quickly, at least in my experience. A couple of raiders armed with pistols can slag a turret by themselves with maybe one of them being killed, and after that they just become short-term bullet magnets.

Everyone starts with this But you learn quickly how to use them with combination with terrain and cover to be real beastly. And that was the problem. My personal record was three turrets taking on ~18 raiders with only one of them blowing up.

But turrets NOT being removed, but not being a god-hand strategy as well? That should make everyone happy. I do know it does make me happy!

Is that not tactical? Improving and optimising the defensive use of turrets? Improving and optimising a killzone instead of "oh shit, raiders are coming. You, go stand... erm... go stand over there and do something".
If you don't want any turrets, if you don't want a corridor of death, if you don't want a killzone, if you don't want "I win" blasting charges, then all you have left is people standing behind the buildings they call home or the rocky outcrop that sits a couple feet away. Against the small armies of raiders that typically outnumber them at least 2-1. Said army of raiders will just mindlessly charge you down and kill you with pistols because they have enough meat to make it work.

[Tynan]

See this is what I think we on the turret side were trying to convey, we don't want an instant win button either, we just want a legitimate strategy revolving around turrets that takes time and effort to accomplish that will keep our precious colonists a bit more out of harms way, which stops them from seeing a lot of dead bodies a fairly bad happiness reducer. Of course there's bound to be "malfunctions" that cause trouble and stuff. I can't convey all my ideas here but I hope it can be realized that such strategies can be just as rewarding and interactive if done right.

You're just saying the designer shouldn't overreact and over-nerf a degenerate strategy, which is completely correct and good game design. Don't worry, I won't. Turrets are great, and they should be useful, but they shouldn't be everything.

[Workload]

I kinda liked my Turret console idea, if you have 3 guys you can only have 3 turrets firing. Doesn't really solve the problem but it does make turrets less effective, in the way of having less guys in the front lines. For late game turrets would be even more worst, if your people have good guns.    Link to the Console idea http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=989.0

Maybe the turrets could jam, needing someone to fix it.

Plus if gun crafting is done maybe you need Gun parts/Higher grade metal. To fix it

[Galileus]

See this is what I think we on the turret side were trying to convey, we don't want an instant win button either, we just want a legitimate strategy revolving around turrets that takes time and effort to accomplish that will keep our precious colonists a bit more out of harms way, which stops them from seeing a lot of dead bodies a fairly bad happiness reducer. Of course there's bound to be "malfunctions" that cause trouble and stuff. I can't convey all my ideas here but I hope it can be realized that such strategies can be just as rewarding and interactive if done right.

See, now, that's why I hate when people don't read my previous posts >.< That's not YOUR side. That's OUR side. I have nothing against turrets, I have everything against turrets as a god-hand mechanic. See, it's simply this mish-mash of terms like turret-problem actually describing problem that turrets are just a part of, and not it's core? Ugly. So I argue that turrets as they are now need to go, you argue that turrets in general don't need to go, actually we agree, just we don't know it.

(but then again, just to be fair, there was so much text-walling done on this topic, I can't blame ya you missed the point. Or I did. Darn, I would probably miss my own point reading it all again. Happens all the time)

Nothing against turrets that help you but don't win the game for you. All the way!

[Bob Buddha]

I vote that the turret should not be eliminated or involve the AI storyteller punishing you for having them.
It should count as an extra man with a pistol that cannot move and have the same health as a human.
The research upgrade should take it to an M-16 level.
It should not explode and take out nearby fighters and walls.
There should be a limit on the total number allowed or minimum spacing between multiple units.
It should have a cover bonus if behind sandbags.
A colonist should be able to fight right along side it and not have to worry about dying when it gets destroyed.
A drafted colonist should be able to repair it or disable it if it malfunctions or is about to explode.