Penalty for underground base

[todofwar]

I was just thinking currently there is a huge disadvantage (fire) to building above ground but no real disadvantage to digging underground. I suggest adding in "earthquake" events that have a possibility of causing cave ins, but outdoor buildings are less affected. Just a way to balance things out.

[Workload]

Earthquake would be very awesome for balance. Plus rock slides that could cover your doors so it will take time to get them out, this can happen from earthquakes.

Mud slides from rain maybe?

[Stormkiko]

Could even have colonists get a little stir-crazy from being underground for days on end.

[todofwar]

Also, maybe hydroponic food grown from solar lamps doesn't taste as good/imparts a happiness penalty (no idea if this is applicable in real life, going for balance here not realism)

[maxthebeast11]

I was thinking upon the lines of underground specific enemies. Large space worms, katana wielding robots, ect. Preferably these enemies will be powerful enough to dissuade the player from settling within a mountain, until later in the game when the colony has the tools to deal with these creatures. This way we can make underground settlement late game specific, because by this time in the game the player will need to expand their borders to accommodate for incline in population.

[todofwar]

I was thinking upon the lines of underground specific enemies. Large space worms, katana wielding robots, ect. Preferably these enemies will be powerful enough to dissuade the player from settling within a mountain, until later in the game when the colony has the tools to deal with these creatures. This way we can make underground settlement late game specific, because by this time in the game the player will need to expand their borders to accommodate for incline in population.

Delve too greedily and too deep and unleash a terrible monster? I like.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Why does every freaking suggestion on this forum function as a way to kick the player in the crotch for doing the smart thing and building in the manner intended to minimize the mayhem and damage they can incur from random events and raiders by increasing the damage they take from raiders and random events?

[todofwar]

Why does every freaking suggestion on this forum function as a way to kick the player in the crotch for doing the smart thing and building in the manner intended to minimize the mayhem and damage they can incur from random events and raiders by increasing the damage they take from raiders and random events?

Because as is there is no challenge in the end. It becomes tower defense with no other penalties. The game is supposed to be about surviving a frontier world that is always wearing down what you try to build. Most suggestions aren't trying to kick you in the crotch, they're trying to up the complexity from just a bunch of raiders to a more well rounded and varied experience. And this is more a balance issue, building outside should be as viable as building inside. There should be pros and cons to both styles.

[richard]

The game is in its infancy - don't be so hasty to judge it on the current emergent gameplay. It's not likely to be a Tower Defence game forever (and I don't regard it as one now).

Having said that, I reckon it's reasonable to apply a psychological penalty to some of the people. Claustrophobia is a real thing, severely affecting 15â€"37% of the world's population according Wikipedia. I'd say that a population crashed from a starship probably should fall in the lower end of that range, but it's still reasonable to have 15% of your population go completely batty if you ask them to live under a hill.

[ShadowDragon8685]

There is, in fact, a claustrophobia random trait. However, if the claustrophobe's room is big enough, they should be happy, even under the mountain.

There should probably be an agoraphobia trait to balance that out - someone who's unhappy in wide-open spaces but likes having a tiny little snug hidey-hole to bed down in.

[maxthebeast11]

Why does every freaking suggestion on this forum function as a way to kick the player in the crotch for doing the smart thing and building in the manner intended to minimize the mayhem and damage they can incur from random events and raiders by increasing the damage they take from raiders and random events?

Lost my breath saying that out loud.

Because decisions that you make should be tailored by as many real life consequences as will ensure you don't have an easy time of things. At least, not easier than the developer intends it to be.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Yes, and if your walls were prone to exploding and bursting into flame every thirty days, you wouldn't bloody well surround yourself with them, would you?

[maxthebeast11]

Yes, and if your walls were prone to exploding and bursting into flame every thirty days, you wouldn't bloody well surround yourself with them, would you?

I feel like this went a little over my head. Mind stating the point you're trying to make in simpler terms for my inferior intellect to understand?

[Semmy]

Isnt the penalty the darkness.

If you let your goons run around in your cave they become unhappy because of the darkness so you need to invest in power and lightning to make them happy.

A system like df in wich they get hurt if they are underground for to long and get exposed to sunlight might be fun though.
So imho its balanced enough.

[maxthebeast11]

Isnt the penalty the darkness.

If you let your goons run around in your cave they become unhappy because of the darkness so you need to invest in power and lightning to make them happy.

A system like df in wich they get hurt if they are underground for to long and get exposed to sunlight might be fun though.
So imho its balanced enough.

If you're playing the path of loyalty through fear, the easiest way to maintain loyalty atm, then I daresay that the darkness helps you.