Door nerfs, killbox nerfs, more sappers, armor buffs, etc

[giltirn]

I honestly think it'll take time for the meta to catch up to the current design.

Old design favored very "closed" bases - lots of walls to funnel and control enemy movement.

Now that sappers are stronger, such a closed-paradigm design can be a liability. It may be better to strategically "open" the base to create fields of fire for the extremely powerful autocannon turret and recently-buffed mini-turret. Using lots of walls to block movement actually fights against this since it blocks LOS from your turrets.

I can imagine a format with a wide perimiter wall, with a large "moat" of territory just inside covered by overlapping autocannons (maybe this is farm/grazing land), with the compact town inside that. The idea is enemies come through a gap in the wall and get mowed down as they cross the open zone.

There's other approaches too. I've seen town-like designs with turrets covering long straight streets, Paris 19th-century style.

Autocannons have a long range and can cover a very large field if placed well.

Basically the paradigm of walls being the be-all-end-all control mechanism is changed; walls are now both useful but also a liability against your turrets since they block LOS. It will take time for old assumptions to work themselves out. I think a lot of people are mostly still talking "in relation to B18", not just judging the game as it is. It'll take time.

Sounds like one big killbox to me! Seriously though, this does seem like a buff to turrets and a nerf to other strategies. With a limited number of pawns it is essential to funnel and concentrate the enemy in the firing line of well-defended groups of pawns. If the enemy are going to split up and turn your base into swiss cheese your only hope is either to spam turrets everywhere or split your own colonists up. The problem with the latter is that you end up seriously outgunned as there are always more raiders than defenders, and you lose all your defensive advantage if they have already penetrated your base. You're just fighting room to room and rolling the dice every time as to who comes out alive. I personally try to avoid turrets because they are expensive to replace; even with a strong row of plasteel turrets you are going to lose at least one in a raid, far more if they get into melee range.

Edit: I think that part of my problem with these changes is that they prevent us from using our tools to control where raiders are going to attack. Most of the fun of designing a base for me is outwitting the raiders; forcing them into a situation they can't win. It's about using your limited resources to maximize your defensive advantage. Spamming turrets doesn't require any thought or planning, and there's not a lot else you can do if the raiders are going to ignore walls and doors.

[Perq]

Most of the fun of designing a base for me is outwitting the raiders; forcing them into a situation they can't win.

If that is so, I'm sure you'll enjoy raiders being smarter now. I mean, if it is fun to design base that outwits raiders, it is more fun the smarter they are, right?

Doing same thing over and over again doesn't sound like outwitting but abuse of bad AI.

[mndfreeze]

My biggest issue with the new changes is the early game, not the late game.  Granted I've always enjoyed the struggle of a playing from nothing start, or tribal with its long research costs, etc, but now I keep running into issues where I can't seem to make it to a high enough tech level fast enough before the raids become to strong. 

I've lost so many colonies in just the last 2 weeks to sappers and seige parties.  I either can't armor up well enough, fast enough, to take em on, or I have no way to control the fight well enough and just get overwhelmed once they get inside my base, whether its designed openly, or closed off.

With kill boxes being a thing before, at least I could build a base that I could survive with just colonists and cover until I got to turrets and such, but now I can't even live that long lol.

[Tynan]

My biggest issue with the new changes is the early game, not the late game.  Granted I've always enjoyed the struggle of a playing from nothing start, or tribal with its long research costs, etc, but now I keep running into issues where I can't seem to make it to a high enough tech level fast enough before the raids become to strong. 

I've lost so many colonies in just the last 2 weeks to sappers and seige parties.  I either can't armor up well enough, fast enough, to take em on, or I have no way to control the fight well enough and just get overwhelmed once they get inside my base, whether its designed openly, or closed off.

With kill boxes being a thing before, at least I could build a base that I could survive with just colonists and cover until I got to turrets and such, but now I can't even live that long lol.

What difficulty/scenario? Why not lower it?

[TheMeInTeam]

Player scaling against raids can be done without tech.

That said, I'll believe a meta shift when I see one.  That entities can't path over each other effectively in 1.0 is a significant nerf to the breach created by sappers for instance, and they'll tend to bottleneck there.

Meanwhile, tech that is > 20,000 research away and costs tons of resources is out of reach for most of the game where base design against raid defense matters.  You get walls right away, and raider stuff as they attack.  With deadfalls nerfed by armor changes micro and AI manipulation is going to remain the only viable defense for tribal barring massive changes to the game.

It does leave the question: what tactics, in principle, should allow the player to reliably win when raiders outnumber colonists capable of violence 2.5 to 1?  In every iteration of 1.0 I've played (they've rolled fast enough for me to skip some), this is still possible to do...and obviously impossible to do with turrets on tribal tech openings.  It is nevertheless still possible to damage raiders and not get damaged.

I know what does work, but what *should* work?

[Greep]

Well, tribals tend to do their best on warm climates anyways, so I guess on extreme you're forced into animal swarming.  That's always been a strength of theirs since you start with 5 people and have more manpower to get it rolling.  They've always had limited options, though, so it's not like there's going to be a great variety in strategies for tribal compared to other starts.

[East]

One question is, how can we win without using a door, without using a Killzone, at an open base with a minimum of RNG?

Unless it is very low difficulty, the enemy firepower overwhelms our firepower.

If we bow, they come with a gun.
If we are guns they have good armor or overwhelming numbers.
Even if they die, they will not be affected by the next attack.
When we are hurt, we are overwhelmed by the next attack.

It is currently impossible to raise colony's firepower to an equal level with limited time and resources.

If you have enough colonists in your power armor and you have a good weapon, you can do some open bass. Yes, I am in the same situation as the World Map Battle, Open Bases. But it is possible to avoid the World Map battle until it is fully prepared.
  In a base battle we need to get the maximum efficiency out of the ready. I do not know how to fight the open bass situation you mentioned.

My good choice? Enemies also find nearby covers. Sand bags and walls are high, but only slightly higher. Where am I supposed to find an edge against raids in battle? How can you be prepared for limited conditions?

I feel that even this sniper turret is aiming open base. It is unstable. Because a sufficient number of turrets to overwhelm an enemy firepower is impossible because of the problem of resources and time. On the open base enemy are concentrated and we are scattered. It is a situation that tactics should avoid.

  How much of a turret should I put in there for my colonists to take control of the enemy with minimal damage? Even turrets can not control. When enemy launch Doomsday and start burning with a Incendiary launcher, how much turret do we need to make? It also has a base every direction.

Untrained rimworld players like hills. Is it because the hills are fun? The hills are not fun. It's uncomfortable. But the reason they are so much is  it is advantageous in defense. This is because it creates natural killzone.

B18, with Killzone, the enemy is prevented from coming in at once and concentrated enough on the firepower, so that the enemy has to deal with the attack time. Use the door to minimize enemy attack opportunities. We attacked more, and fewer had very few attack opportunities. Through it we found a win point.

B18, I was able to concentrate my resources on the limited points, so that I could concentrate my resources on only one side and consequently solve the problem with limited resources and time.

Even if you have enough resources and time. B18, I have not used traps and turrets. Because even if you leave your hand in battle (AFK) it solves the battle. That is not funny. Such should be fixed. It does not even have to worry about building. Just laid a lot. Then it wins. Is it fun?

But it is called cheese.killzone,door play. Because the enemy dies without doing anything. Of course, it did not consider the effort for it at all.

[Greep]

Well I just got an extreme win with open map turret+support strat.  Regarding enemies with launchers, they do not appear in 1.0 until much later in the game.  You should either have cannons or psy-lances to deal with them then.  Yes cannons can tank a doomsday with plenty of hp to spare (triple launcher usually leaves them too vulnerable afterwards).  Not to mention mortars are more effective late game and I probably should have been using IEDs too by then.  Mechanoids are more common in end game anyways, I think I only saw ~6 launchers in enemy hands the whole game before the ship launch sequence.  Vs inferno cannons, firefoam is a hard counter.  Early game killzone is also less necessary as you can just pick up your turrets and move them now.

Regarding doors, I think this was just to nerf cheesing thrumbos and manhunters early game.  Would this really affect their use against raids?  Watching videos on people using door peekaboo against raiders I never saw a case where hp actually made a difference, although I don't have huge experience with door tactics myself (a little, though).

[Oblitus]

I think now I can formulate a problem with new balance.

Some facts about rimworld raids:
* Enemy is always stronger than you. Enemy pawns always come in overwhelming numbers, often carrying extremely valuable and powerful one-shot weapons.
* Enemy has infinite resources. While obtaining, training, equipping and sustaining pawns is a huge concern for a player, enemies are being spawned from thin air. Any loss, any injury, any damage would hit the player hard. Enemies would just spawn more.
* Enemies are not attacking to achieve some reasonable goal. They are attacking to deal as much damage as they can. They are attacking animals, burning crops and buildings, trashing furniture just to cause harm. They would do it even if it puts them in disadvantage tactically. They can afford it - they are all kamikaze created for this sole purpose.

Balance changes are obviously intended to eliminate player's ability to get whatever advantage, be it strategical or tactical. Basically all raids I'm heving in current version are sappers, sieges and drop pods - all of them created to avoid all types of defence player can have. New update also makes enemies learn where traps are, so they would become useless after several raids too.

Together this means that the game is rigged to be unwinnable by design. And it has nothing to do with difficulty - it is the core design.

Not to mention mortars are more effective late game

I've tried to counter a siege with own (trophies from previous sieges) mortars once. I had 6 mortars. I've never hit anything despite targets being stationary. Not mortars, not pawns around them.

[East]

Regarding doors, I think this was just to nerf cheesing thrumbos and manhunters early game.  Would this really affect their use against raids? 

It is strange that this bug reporter problem has not been solved so far if it is just patching the door for the thrumbo.
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=31172.msg319331#msg319331

If this problem is still not resolved, so it is not a problem of Trumbo. This bug report is real cheese.

Door Cheese attacks at the time the enemy moves to the time of finding the cover, and hides behind the door if the enemy tries to attack. When the enemy comes out of the cover again, we come out and attack again.

The colonist is injured. Hide the colonist behind the door. He is safe. If you fight in the sandbag instead of the door, it is dangerous to get out of cover.
Cheese is a door that can easily escape from dangerous places.

For mechanodoids, I throw an emp and hide behind the door. When the enemy stunts, we attack the enemies.  When the enemy finishes the stun, we hide behind the door again.

If it is melee, when the enemy approaches, avoid the back of the door, while we attack the melee enemy with another door while the melee enemy hits the door.

sapper, we stick our heads across the doors and catch the miners before the enemy responds. When the enemy is trying to respond, we run to the back of the door.

killzone- Narrow entrance dense firepower. When an enemy comes entrance, they die immediately. There is very little chance of them fighting back.

[Greep]

Not to mention mortars are more effective late game

I've tried to counter a siege with own (trophies from previous sieges) mortars once. I had 6 mortars. I've never hit anything despite targets being stationary. Not mortars, not pawns around them.

How long did you use them?  My fort had 7, and they broke all sieges consistently before they fired a single shot, and broke ships with about 30 shells.  They don't really become reliable against sieges until you have clumps of ~20 raiders, though, so I don't research mortars these days until I have nothing pressing.

[Oblitus]

Not to mention mortars are more effective late game

I've tried to counter a siege with own (trophies from previous sieges) mortars once. I had 6 mortars. I've never hit anything despite targets being stationary. Not mortars, not pawns around them.

How long did you use them?  My fort had 7, and they broke all sieges consistently before they fired a single shot, and broke ships with about 30 shells.  They don't really become reliable against sieges until you have clumps of ~20 raiders, though, so I don't research mortars these days until I have nothing pressing.

Until enemy got out of ammo and switched to head-on assault. Somethign like 50 shots from my side at total.

[TheMeInTeam]

Regarding doors, I think this was just to nerf cheesing thrumbos and manhunters early game.  Would this really affect their use against raids?  Watching videos on people using door peekaboo against raiders I never saw a case where hp actually made a difference, although I don't have huge experience with door tactics myself (a little, though).

HP didn't make a difference, and not against thrumbos either because as long as it has a "valid path to what it's attacking" when you shut the door it will attempt to use that path.  Then you simply open the door and shoot it again, repeating until it bleeds out.  Making it aggro the door regardless means repair door briefly while shooting it from another door --> still free hits.  It's not an easy AI issue to solve.

Raiders that lose path to their target historically pick a new target randomly, after which you can open the doors again and pop them, shutting before their AI latches on again.  Problem with making them concentrate on the door in question in dedicated fashion is that doing so opens up new abuses of AI.

Basically all raids I'm heving in current version are sappers, sieges and drop pods - all of them created to avoid all types of defence player can have. New update also makes enemies learn where traps are, so they would become useless after several raids too.

Sieges ate the nerf bat though since they don't have year 1 massed sniper rifles.  As soon as you have a few mortars, you'll basically always force the siege to attack before it builds + fires its mortars (I play on extreme, so probably have enough raider density to hit some more consistently).  The other two raid types are more problematic and essentially require micro tricks to handle reliably on higher difficulties. 

Some of these have been arbitrarily labeled as "cheese".  While that discussion was off-topic in the 1.0 thread, it's worth pointing out that this is still a sore point from a balance perspective and goes against the "balance process" thread.  I'm not assuming thought processes, but rather going off what was stated to be the thought process in writing.

For words to have real meaning in the English language, they must *constrain anticipation*.  I've seen people describe killboxes as cheesy and be okay with micromanagement based on doors.  I've seen people describe the opposite.  Both of these have real tradeoffs in the game...is the wealth + meat from a thrumbo really worth a full game day micromanaging to kill it?  Sometimes pretty obviously yes (you're starving on sea ice), sometimes pretty obviously no (you're at risk of being raided, have enough food, and are delaying defenses and other productive tasks needlessly).

As another illustration: try to differentiate "door cheese" from "cover cheese"...letting the AI seek cover and simply leaving LoS when it does, only to return to LoS and fire once they leave cover to repeat the loop.  Unless the enemy overruns you with melee, you can do this as long as your hunger/rest bars hold up and consistently hit raiders w/o return fire.

Unless the risk from taking damage gets reduced and trading damage taken for much faster defeats of raids becomes more viable, the meta will remain on "pick whatever option defeats raids with the least damage taken, and between similar performers pick the less expensive one".

Putting a wall around the base is going to remain very competitive because of its cost : utility, even if you do still need measures against sappers + drop pods.  With alterations to sappers these actually play pretty similarly, you want to be able to defeat in detail inside the walls.

[Oblitus]

Basically all raids I'm heving in current version are sappers, sieges and drop pods - all of them created to avoid all types of defence player can have. New update also makes enemies learn where traps are, so they would become useless after several raids too.

Sieges ate the nerf bat though since they don't have year 1 massed sniper rifles.  As soon as you have a few mortars, you'll basically always force the siege to attack before it builds + fires its mortars

Read about my actual experience with mortars vs sieges above.

[East]

Putting a wall around the base is going to remain very competitive because of its cost : utility, even if you do still need measures against sappers + drop pods.  With alterations to sappers these actually play pretty similarly, you want to be able to defeat in detail inside the walls.

I suspect Taynan wants to demolish the outer walls in the sense of "Sniper Turret", "Plate Armor" and "Open Base".

It's like an outpost of a pirate.