Dissasembling Scythers

Started by Jean, June 13, 2020, 06:06:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jean

Wiki 25 april 2020: "Dead scythers may be disassembled at the machining table for 20 steel, 5 plasteel and 1 component, though these values are affected by mechanoid disassembly efficiency."

Is this still correct?
I only get 15 steels.

Canute

Sounds correct, but i think a mechanoid disassembly efficiency got renamed into mech. shredding eff.

Jean

#2
No, I just killed a scyther with the development tools (no missing part) and I only get 15 steels with a craftsman 100% mechanoid shredding efficiency.
No plasteel or component. And they are so hard to kill!

Canute

Blame the devs. they changed the values. But 15 steel is currently correct for the 2654 build.
You sometimes geting more from smelting a weapon then from a sycther/lancer, but that's developer logic.

zizard

There has been a push to nerf all raid rewards e.g. mech disassembly, manhunter rot, biocoded weapons, death acidifier. God forbid anything good happens in the game apart from narrowly prescribed "story" outcomes.

Jean

Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!

Hilvon1984

I suspect that this was initially implemented to fix the "Mechanoid farm" exploit.

Basically at some point you could use this strat: Get a mechanoid cluster with Assembler that assembles something squishy. Like Lancers. Put some turrets around it. So every day you get a lancer body you can disassemble. And with it producing components and plaststeel, that was pretty OP.

So they nerfed disassembling resource gain.

And then they fixed the problem by limiting the Assemblers to only producing 4 mechs before shutting down. But left the initial "fix" in place. Most likely because nobody bothered to notice that it is no longer neccesary.

Ukas

While searching a mod for less mechanoid events I found this mod Worthwhile Mechanoids Patch, maybe it'll help you

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2086428283

ThiIsMe007

#8
I find it mildly amusing disheartening that we get so many mods nowadays about rolling back dev decisions about "game balance" rather than "improving upon interesting existing gameplay".

I would positively love to play a RW where "killboxes" and "turtling" are the least efficient strategies to progress in the game, but resources "magically disappearing" into thin air after an ever-increasing number raids is not the way to go about it. Gameplay seems to get more repetitive and disappointing after each recent patch.

I don't want to resign myself to this while gameplay features exist (or could easily be enhanced) that may lead to more appealing prospects with the same result of keeping the game challenging over time, like for example exploring the world map or interacting with factions in more significant ways :

1/ introduce the need to locate some rarer resources for end-game purposes. How many pawns will you send out to secure these essential resources, while leaving your base less defended, risking ambushes ?

2/ introduce the need to ally with some factions, for protection or just for gameplay purposes (allying with pirates -> slaver scenario, allying with tribals -> Gaia scenario), and because no matter the biome your base shouldn't ever be 100% self-sustaining. In return, you'll have to also protect your allies, their bases, their economy, because if one of you falls, the other one will follow shortly after.

3/ make the overall economy and trades a more viable strategy to pursue. Resources shouldn't be almost infinite on the home map, and force players to migrate, thus avoiding the "turtling", but also force them to abandon some resources along the way (buildings especially, like "killboxes").

This is just on top of my head, and should make the game a much more dynamic experience : having to survive on different maps, fight in different configurations, promoting a self-regulating balance over an exponential design (more and more enemies, with higher and higher damage) which just ends up being boring and unconvincing ("biocoded" weapons on some tribals, really?).

AileTheAlien

I'm still holding out hope for the game moving away from infinite raider scaling and reward-nerfing. The Royalty DLC has the tribute-collector, which (somewhat) acts as a money-sink, and feels better to me than only scaling up the size of raiders (big base -> big raiders), or reducing the rewards (scyther shredding, acidifiers). Collecting rare loot could work to incentivize players to leave their bases, but right now you can grow, trade, or loot everything besides AI persona-cores and stay inside of your base. Even cores are only a final challenge, since you don't need to collect them on an ongoing basis. As for migrating, that wouldn't work without a money-sink, since players could just pack up and resettle with most of their valuables in a caravan. That's kind of the crux of where we're at - enemy-scaling and reward-nerfing are both used already, but we don't have good money-sinks to balance it out.

Ukas

I'm greatly in favor of reward-nerfing. No matter which biome or scenario I play I seem to find a way to get rich quite fast. Just grow something, craft something then trade. You have silver you have all the materials you need. I don't see a reason why looting should be a great deal in the game.

ThiIsMe007

#11
Quote from: AileTheAlien on July 10, 2020, 08:50:12 PMI'm still holding out hope for the game moving away from infinite raider scaling and reward-nerfing.

Uninspired and demotivating gameplay features like "biocoding" or "acidifiers" to a lesser degree should never have been introduced. Added to the walls/turrets nerf, they've nearly killed all the fun I had going into a battle prior to v1.1.

I'm surprised that Tynan let himself walk into this trap. It should have been possible for him to foresee that the bloat of wealth would never be compensated by the pressure of infinite raiders, for two simple reasons. First the game AI and second the hardware of the player, both of them being limited by necessity (and thus leading to "killboxes").

With v1.1, it seems the gameplay operates a 180 turn, going against its core design principle of exponential wealth increase, attempting to reduce it somewhat here and there, by minor adjustments. This equates to fighting a self-inflicted tide with a wooden spoon, a bit of a schizophrenic endeavour if you asked me. It also has the strange side-effect of taunting the player : "See this fine gear sitting right under your nose? Well you can't have it".

A more elegant solution would have been to make enemies flee when their survival is compromised. This already exists at a macro level (50+% of raiders killed), but not at the micro level of an individual raider. Fleeing enemies would have the advantage of taking their wealth with them, so the player can't just sit behind the safety of a "killbox" if they also want the best gear. EDIT: since this would make the game easier overall, it could be balanced by other factors, such as increased cover protection or armour quality.

This could also be coupled with other traditional features like "morale" or "leadership". Raiders would hold out better and fight more efficiently under the supervision of a competent leader, making it a priority for the player to identify and eliminate them. Easier said than done in the mayhem of some battles, but this could again be coupled with other gameplay features like "snipers" or "stealth operatives", sent behind enemy lines for a quick assassination!

Of course this could be applied to the player's side as well, where a leader would boost the morale and efficiency, while their elimination would disorient colonists for a while, making them unable to move and just defend themselves instead of cooperating with each other.

So yeah, I can agree that introducing more and more wealth (with ever increasing numbers of raids) has never been a healthy concept to start with. I would much prefer to have less frequent but really challenging battles, involving only a couple of enemies (thus limiting wealth distribution) but demanding tactics and skills of the player, rather than the repeated swarms of raiders operating like mindless "zerglings".

As I've said before, I would also like to see expanded the need for real faction interactions, like diplomacy or trades (because resources would not be infinite or easy to come by) and for colonists to migrate (because of soil fertility exhaustion over time, a lack of materials needed for research purposes or just because the location of the colonist base would be known to more and more hostile factions over time). They could be the real money sinks, keeping the player alert and making the game organically more balanced, diverse, rewarding and ultimately fun.

Jean

What if we stopped criticizing and suggesting about it. My topic was only to make sure it was the wiki that was out of date and not me who was wrong.
In addition, scythers are easy to eliminate with body blocking, it is the centipedes that are problematic and these give plastacier.
You can use the ideas sub-forum if you want to continue your comments on this subject.

Ramsis

Everyone just take it easy, we're all friends in organ harvesting here. Try to steer back to the initial topic please.
Ugh... I have SO MANY MESSES TO CLEAN UP. Oh also I slap people around who work on mods <3

"Back off man, I'm a scientist."
- Egon Stetmann


Awoo~