turret raid spawn increase?

[keylocke]

i'm talking about vanilla turrets (unmodded).

does adding new turrets really increase the number and frequency of raider spawns? if so, how much does each turret increase the enemy roster? does the raider spawn have a limit cap? (ie: using debugmode seems to have a 1000pts raider spawn as the highest available)

but if the raider spawns have a limit cap, does this mean that if players created enough turrets, there's gonna be a threshold when raiders spawns become a moot point?

---------------

in gnomoria, they keep increasing the enemy spawns based on kingdom value (overall wealth of the kingdom). which is why players need to balance their defenses appropriately with their kingdom's wealth.

but how does the storyteller of rimworld balance out the difficulty of spawns and events triggered? the description when choosing the storyteller AI is kinda vague with the details in what they actually do.. so it's kinda hard to gauge when the AI is suddenly gonna throw you a curve ball.

[keylocke]

*bump*

i tested it out. since the introduction of multiple factions on alpha 3, the possibility of multiple raider parties converging into a zerg rush seems to be lower than in alpha 2, since rival factions end up fighting each other when they meet along the way.

so even though adding more turrets increases the raider spawns, if the player created enough turret defensive lines to overcome the threshold of enemies passing through a choke point at any given time,  then raiders become a moot point. (add to the tendency of large groups of enemies to divide their troops into several waves, mean that fewer enemies pass through a choke point at the same time) 

-----

this one i made using 56 improvised turrets. i had to wait until i got around 9k metal before i start building to avoid enemy interruption , 'coz it's quite fragile when incomplete and a single turret explosion will wipe it out entirely (it's risky). but when finally done, my turrets managed to survive against several waves of simultaneous enemy raids without even needing repairs. so i guess, it's more effective than i actually thought it was..




[attachment deleted by admin: too old]

[DDRMANIAC007]

Turrets increasing raisers spawns is a dumb mechanic. There I said it.

[Tynan]

Turrets increasing raisers spawns is a dumb mechanic. There I said it.

I really am open to suggestions for alternatives to scaling vs colony strength. However, just doing it on time, population, or completely randomly all have their own issues, as I'm sure you can see.

[PhenomTaker]

Ahhh that explains alot...
The problem with this mechanic is:
"huh... almost lost a colonist, better build more turrets" -> even more raiders will attack.
I don't know how its related but it kinda makes turrets more bad than good.
Maybe a hidden points-system would be nice here. Like in Dwarf Fortress (?) or Gnomoria.
So every colonist (maybe based on shooting/melee skill, or sum of skill levels), buildings, playtime, allied factions, etc. give points an e.g. if your colony is worth 100points there will be 6-10 raiders attacking you (when there is a raid), 150points 8-12,...
NOTE: I did not mean that exactly AT 100 points there will be an attack, more like the game is saying "I think the player needs a raid. Let's see how much his colony is worth. Okay 102 Points, that would be 6-10 raiders. (Random). Here are 7 Raiders attacking you!"

Would need quite a lot work on balancing tough, but just an idea

[Tynan]

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.

[PhenomTaker]

ColonistCount + 0.4*TurretCount

Okay I will take a look on it with my new colonies.
Now I have the feeling that when I lost against raids it was because I built too much turrets.

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

But if the colonist didn't die, just almost, and I build more turrets because it was too close, I'll end up facing harder raiders than without building new ones.

Preventive Turrets = More bad than good.
Turrets in exchange for lost colonist = More good than bad (unless you build more than ~3 per lost colonist)

[Kokula]

I really am open to suggestions for alternatives to scaling vs colony strength. However, just doing it on time, population, or completely randomly all have their own issues, as I'm sure you can see.

Trouble is: One builds turrets in order to tip the balance of power in ones favour. Forcing it back to equilibrium will always be unsatisfactory since it will always counter the players intend.

If you worry that the colony might become to powerful, introduce a non-linear cost to the turrets. Like requiring oil for maintenance with oilpumps having diminishing returns or negative side effects like uglyness or reduced fertility.
(not ammunition though, since that scales linearly with damage)

I'd like to see the enemies scale with resources in proximity to your base/buildings or on the map. So a foot/silver-hoarder becomes a target.

[UrbanBourbon]

I really am open to suggestions for alternatives to scaling vs colony strength. However, just doing it on time, population, or completely randomly all have their own issues, as I'm sure you can see.

How about this instead:

1. Steady increase in raider headcount at first, disregarding colony headcount or turret count.
2. At a certain point, cease attacks altogether, entering a period of peace.
3. HUGE RAID after it's been quiet (too quiet). Double the raider numbers from the last attack. This is the attack that changes the colony dynamics, assuming the player survives. In fact, the AI could be told to NOT kill everyone, but just create maximum chaos and material destruction. Raiders could be programmed to carry items away from stockpiles, perhaps based on the item/stack value. Whatever handful of colonists would survive, they would have to rebuild. Raiders being satisfied for their loot, they'd leave the player alone for a long time... before attacking again.
4. Perhaps at this point the attacks could come fewer and further between and adjust the raider headcount to the colonist headcount, weapons level, skill level, etc. Unless of course the player gets excessively rich (in silver), at which point initiate another large raid, and hammer the player with multiple raider waves, stopping either after a number of silver has been carried away or if 3-4 consecutive waves get wiped out completely.
5. As extra, make 1-2 factions "suffer starvation" at some point, at which point they'll send all they've got to take the player's food. The player could choose to dump the food stores outside, so that the faction raiders would carry away the food rather than attack the colony. The more food left for them, the less attackers the player would have to deal with. If the faction is killed completely, the faction is eliminated. The more faction members the player kills or captures, the more the relations suffer. Since we're talking about food, the faction raiders could also attack local animals first instead of colonists.
6. I think it'd be excessively hilarious if the raiders started digging through the rock to get access to the colony. But at this point we're talking about adjusting their AI and tactics, which could be a roundabout way to keep the gameplay fresh. Maybe it's not about the quantity but the quality of the raiders. In fact, more heinous attacks could be introduced later in the gameplay, just when the gameplay starts to seem repetitive.


There's plenty of options if you stop looking for a universal formula that fits all players and all situations. Don't write a formula. Formulas are bland. Write a script or a hundred potential events and possibly give the player subtle hints what's about to happen soon. Just make sure the player experiences peace AND chaos. There needs to be contrast and variety.

EDIT:
Ahhh... Yes. I understand now. I didn't count for the player reactions. Even if the raiders aren't initially hellbent on killing the colonists, the player doesn't know that. The player will defend what he's built and we can't just program the raiders to ignore incoming shots. Unless of course you'd prompt the player with a pop-up that suggests him hide.

Also, another thing that occurred me was that the raiders could linger in the area and not leave in case the player decides to hide. That would force some stealth and hit&run tactics to pick off the invaders one by one.

[Gideon]

If the problem is that turrets are too effective when spammed, then perhaps some ongoing cost to having them?

Maybe require the turrets to be reloaded with ammo after a certain number of shots. This would make large numbers of turrets unsupportable, due to the resource and time drain they would impose.

[Headshotkill]

I would like to see a more dynamic raider system, first a hostile faction would send small groups at first but after some time they should stay away for quiet a while (preparing) and then do a large assault.

[Tynan]

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.

[Architect]

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.

What if you dig very, very deep into the mountains? XD

[Plasmatic]

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.

What if you dig very, very deep into the mountains? XD

That is assuming you are able to dig at all.. I've had a map spawn with no side mountain at all (several mods installed, possibly one of them influencing map seed)

That and the regular size of side mountain vs 12 tiles from edge thing limits the depth of bases.

[bluntfeather]

But with raider artillery wouldn't you at some point (likely later than the raiders) have your own, likely more effectively placed form of artillery? Possibly repurposing their artillery for your own needs?

This is kind of leading away from the subject, but I'd like the game at some point to shift focus a bit from base defense to colonist offense (destroying other bases). Leading to more interesting strategies, like who to leave behind to guard the base, etc.

Turrets are maybe just getting this attention because there isn't much more to the game right now.