Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: October 27, 2020, 04:56:30 PM »

Alright, I'm a man of my word, so I'm going to make a post that goes against everything I believe in...

I support nerfing storage.

It's clear to me now that even some of the game's most difficult challenges can be (fairly) taken on even with minimal storage, and if that's the case then the only argument remaining to keep storage un-nerfed is that it allows players to carry extremely large fun/meme items. While I do feel like nerfing storage will probably increase the overall difficulty of cogmind, it will probably make the game more interesting overall due to the extra slots that are available to use for other utilities and things. It will also reduce inventory paralysis which I know is a common complaint about the game currently. I'm not sure if I support the no_stack variety of the storage nerf, but I can agree that something should be changed, and I'm optimistic about trying out a no_stack build of the game to see how it works for myself.

So lets throw some storage nerfs at the wall and see what sticks. I'm going to go take a shower now, but after writing this I'm not sure if I'll ever feel clean again.

PS: If you want to see what changed my mind, just watch GJ assault the W base with minimal storage:

2

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: October 15, 2020, 10:39:48 AM »

If the item just burns out parts randomly it's not going to be worth my time anymore, which would be a shame, because I think it's so much fun. If it's just a slow drain on propulsion then that is slightly better, but overall I'd prefer modifying resource consumption instead of having it consume my parts. Also I can imagine the cheese now where people just run the imprinter all around ZDC till she burns out her prop and they get a free kill... why do I get the feeling there are insidious cheese strats behind the proposal of this nerf?

It's not random destruction, "burnout" as in slowly damages like the burnout mechanic, which seems fine for a very powerful part. Just not something you use for an entire run, which fast builds are otherwise very good at doing and this one currently just makes them that much better at it.

Huge amounts of heat is also possible, also matter req idea. Any would work really. I prefer the damage approach unless its effect is nerfed, though (which is not as fun).

Imprinter is not a problem, can just have her toggle it if necessary.

Couple of things here... currently overload dmg to prop is so high that you really can't use it for long without completely destroying your prop. Lets just look at the best cooled prop in the game, Cld. Q-Thruster. It has a 20% burnout rate and only 80 integrity... which means on average you have about 400 moves before that prop is completely used up. This is nothing in the grand scheme of flight builds, and it explains why people mostly use overloading for just a few turns here and there to maybe escape a partial spot or a squad that was looking for them. Now granted some of the earlier prop have slightly more integrity (90) and less burnout (10-15%), but my point is these effects are extremely damaging to low integrity propulsion and as a result are only used sparingly.

Lets look at some stats here on some end game prop...

2 Cld q-thruster (overloaded)
Speed: 20
Energy: -6 upkeep - 19 move/per turn = -25 energy per turn
Heat:  0 upkeep + 28.5 move/per turn = +28.5 heat per turn

2 Cld q-thruster w/ metafield
Speed: 13
Energy: -26 upkeep - 15.3 move/per turn = -41.3 energy per turn
Heat: 0 upkeep + 15.3 move/per turn = +15.3 heat per turn

2 Imp. q-thrusters w/ metafield
Speed: 16
Energy: -26 upkeep -12.5 move/per turn = -38.5 energy per turn
Heat: +6 upkeep +12.5 mov/per turn = +18.5 heat per turn

As you can see, using metafield increases speed by about 50-75% over overloaded prop and generates about half as much heat, but nearly doubles energy costs... In other words, you trade heat generation/prop degradation for energy consumption, some extra speed, and another slot utilized. In my opinion if metafield also degraded prop the benefits would not be worth it over just overloading standard cld propulsion because:

1) Heat is much more manageable than energy through most of the game
2) The extra utility slot / inventory could be put to better use than a utility that I'll only toggle every once in a while (whereas cld prop doesn't have this issue considering you need prop to move)
3) Don't have to worry about metafield being shot off
4) The speed difference really isn't a big one overall. Do I really need to go 13 speed over 20? No, not really. (Speed is an irrelevant stat [tm])

3

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: October 14, 2020, 06:06:19 PM »

Also I can imagine the cheese now where people just run the imprinter all around ZDC till she burns out her prop and they get a free kill... why do I get the feeling there insidious cheese strats behind the proposal of this nerf?

Come on man, don't imply that I'm trying to deceive the developer into changing game mechanics just so I can exploit them.  Anything that I post here is only because I think it could potentially improve the overall game experience.  Finding cheese can be fun but most of us only do it so that the game can be updated and improved, the same as with finding bugs.  And poking holes in unimplemented mechanics and ideas is important so it's good to bring up considerations and concerns like yours; that's part of the purpose of this thread.  In this case, the damaging parts idea was one of several that I proposed, and the rationale is that it would be similar to cooled propulsion in both function and theme.

I guess it didn't come off that way, but I was just playing around =P Def don't mean any disrespect, tbh I didn't read closely enough and I thought zxc had proposed it and I was poking fun at him since he always has insidious cheese strats in mind. I don't think anybody here is trying to ruin other people's fun and I truly believe we all have the best intentions for this game, so sorry if that came off like I was disgusted by your proposal or something lol

4

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: October 14, 2020, 11:14:28 AM »

Proposal #1.  Make all of the energy and heat artifacts less common.  I'm picturing a scenario where you get either (not both, just one selected at random) the integrated singularity reactor or the integrated heat negator *guaranteed*, probably located in the top-right AA shell of the LRC lab? (The one with a tile for a single AA that is sometimes empty.)  In addition to this, the lesser integrated reactor and integrated dissipator would be elevated to the status of artifacts that are protected by S7 guard (in place of the integrated singularity reactors and heat negators which would no longer spawn in these prefabs).  The net effect is that players get less free energy/cooling on average.  The benefits of this are more careful consideration of overall build composition, energy use, and heat upkeep; evolving a third power slot becomes more appealing and an interesting build option; Zhirov's AA increases in value, as does Lab's.  Players with the subatomic replicator could still replicate the AAs that they do find.  That is, unless...

I really don't see how nerfing the energy / heat AA's makes the game any more interesting. I personally don't consider evolving extra engine slots interesting gameplay, they don't *do* anything other than provider power. Utility and weapon slots are where all the interesting mechanics in cogmind lie, and if I have to evolve more engine slots to support the same build, I'm losing those interesting utility or weapon slots. I also don't think they are too common.. I have so many games where I get zero energy AA's and then my builds feel significantly weaker. Also, some builds are so energy hungry that they require energy AA's and those builds will completely disappear if energy AA's are changed significantly, which I think is the opposite of increasing variation.

Finally, if we reduce their spawn rate even further, like GJ said we're going to end up with more CRM's / IR's unless we add more artifacts. Getting 4 CRM's in one s7 feels really bad, and we all know that getting multiple IR's is significantly more impactful than getting multiple energy AA's.

If you want to change energy balance or heat dissipation I would stay away from the interesting AA's. Instead, focus on the fact that coolant injectors are insanely powerful compared to regular cooling systems, or perhaps the fact that energy gen doesn't matter if you carry 5 exp. biowells in your inventory. I think if you can manage to get some AA's that replace cooling utilities or engines you're going to end up with even more interesting builds as you have more slots available to put on other cool utilities or weapons.

As it is of some relevance to the recent discussion, I will highlight a run I just played: https://cogmind-api.gridsagegames.com/scoresheets/zdEEsud7mfcDK3ud7.txt

This is a slow-combat (treads) ++ win,

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

utilizing Alpha Cannon and EMDS for A0

with no S7. I've also previously done ++ without S7 using a treads-multirails type of build. What this demonstrates is that energy-greedy strats are not that necessary for doing extended endgame, at least for combat. Something like flight could possibly need a lot of energy supply, I've done a hover++ without R branches that managed to support its energy costs with a VCR, Imp. Fusion Compressor and energy wells. There are alternatives to beating the endgame than just having a ton of AA support from S7, so maybe it's not necessary for those to be as good/frequent as they are, though you do want S7 to feel somewhat satisfying in terms of what you get, and having it occasionally enable certain types of energy-greedy builds is good.

This is a super awesome run, very impressive. I do agree that s7 is not required to ++, though it is much more challenging to do so without s7's support... that said I don't think that acts as evidence that s7's AA's should be nerfed. In reality your path through the game should be part of what helps you direct your end game build... if I want to go for a very energy hungry build, I should probably go to s7 to get some energy AA's. If I want to focus more on offense (and maybe don't want to run a force field), or maybe have issues with alert management, I could instead go to Lab or T and otherwise skip s7.

- Alert changes
  - Gain alert when spotted by a robot, not on killing it
    - Gain alert for reinforcement squads on dispatch
    - Gain alert for investigation squads only on spot
    - No repeated alert gain for the same squad
    - Promotes true stealth
    - Gives non-combat builds more to worry about
    - Removes disincentive to blast robots that have seen you already
- Mass support utils
  - Subvert disadvantages of fastest prop types
  - Tread on the purpose of prop slots
  - Probably could be safely removed

This alert change sounds awesome... I think it makes more logical sense for alert to rise as you get spotted (enemy bots reporting your presence back to MC and all that), whereas killing enemies would "silence" their communications and not affect alert (leaving their superiors wondering what happened)

Mass support utils are interesting in that they are usually not great overall, but if you stick them on flight they enable 2 prop flight builds that have way better energy efficiency than standard 6+ flight builds, or if you stick them on core hover you can use treads as prop armor and fly around at 50 speed. I like these usages but I have to agree that 2 prop flight being the best type of flight feels very strange to me. Not sure what a good solution is here but I definitely don't think they should be removed.

I like the metafield nerf idea that damages propulsion

ughh please no more nerfs that just break parts. Currently it's already somewhat tedious to manage metafield early in F due to energy concerns (lots of toggling until you get something like fusion compressor), this change would just amplify that greatly. Metafield is one of those items that completely changes how certain prop operate (namely looking at hover) and it enables some of the most fun builds in the game... If it has to be nerfed, I would prefer something that doesn't require even more tedious item management... Things like:

* Requiring matter to operate, like a fusion compressor
* Changing the speed increase to be more reasonable, maybe closer to meta fiber
* Causing random heat spikes like corruption effects
* Playing with the overall energy consumption / heat generation balance

If the item just burns out parts randomly it's not going to be worth my time anymore, which would be a shame, because I think it's so much fun. If it's just a slow drain on propulsion then that is slightly better, but overall I'd prefer modifying resource consumption instead of having it consume my parts. Also I can imagine the cheese now where people just run the imprinter all around ZDC till she burns out her prop and they get a free kill... why do I get the feeling there are insidious cheese strats behind the proposal of this nerf?

5

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: October 04, 2020, 05:08:54 PM »

(Was writing this up and Kyz beat me to posting xD)

Since my digless flight hover run concluded in absolute victory, I wanted to share some of my thoughts about the proposed digging changes...
When digging is not available:

1) Emergency access doors are way more important, as are things to discover them, like terrain scanning / structural scanners / emergency doors hacks / derelict log intel. Finding some emergency doors could meant the difference between getting spotted by multiple squads or remaining completely invisible.

2) The full infowar package is much more powerful... Cloaking is way more useful for avoiding detection against the more numerous squads you will be forced to rush past, and ECM suites are more useful for losing their aggro once you pull it.

3) Due to the increased number of times you will be spotted, part attrition is much higher... things like sensors / terrain scanners are going to be shot off much more frequently. This does lead to more tedious micro management of infowar <-> defense util swapping since you'll be switching between stealth and bricc modes more often.

4) Gui. weapons and other diversionary tactics are much more powerful since they are sometimes the only way to clear out a congested choke point.

5) Caves felt more interesting due to increased confrontation with enemies.

Overall, the game felt quite a bit more challenging, but not so challenging that it was overly frustrating. I really enjoyed getting to use some of the currently lesser-used stealth utilities to great effect, the benefits they offer are much more impactful when you can't just dig around your enemies. I think I've come to like the idea of nerfing digging even further, and since digless probably shouldn't be the standard style of game play, maybe what zxc has proposed (walls don't cave-in, earth tiles always might) would make sense after all.

PS: Here's a link to the three VODS that made up the run... it's quite a ride =)
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/760903939
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/760904512
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/760906032

6

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: September 29, 2020, 02:10:39 PM »

You probably aren't aware of how easily Researchers die (or lose their scanner) because you've never had to roll for those kills.

I recently lost a game on stream where there was a Researcher guarding the door to the S7 cache... I was on treads and didn't have enough hacking to open the door. I tried to use FLK to assimilate the researcher, and it missed. It had a 95% chance PLUS the 10% targeting bonus (which I know doesn't get added on), and yet I still missed... and getting scanned in s7 definitely caused the loss of the run, as I was in no way prepared to deal with trackers. So yes, I have had to roll for those kills, and losing the roll does not feel good in the slightest. I don't think a 5% chance to end my run is fun, and looking back I probably shouldn't have even attempted to enter due to my situation. I don't think I'd ever attempt a sneak attack, a volley of EM, or any of the options you suggested without being prepared to deal with trackers... going for those options while unprepared is a good way to immediately throw a run.

Also, the reason I mentioned the SHELL lab was specifically b/c of that researcher. The reinforcements he calls aren't relevant for the reasons you mentioned, what is relevant is getting inside without getting scanned.
 I'll admit this was a bigger issue in the past when getting scanned in Q meant getting intercept squads, but I still don't like the gamefeel of having to take chances to luck out on a researcher kill. It's too RNG, not enough control over it given to the player, and unlike other RNG mechanics like killing DM it makes your run quite a bit more difficult if you fail (though I will agree that Q series are not the end of the world). I much prefer the stealth feel here utilizing digging, it's very satisfying to be able to get to the items you want while keeping a low profile amongst the 0b10 bots, and you can tailor that in a way that you don't accidently provoke researcher wrath.

7

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: September 29, 2020, 11:52:10 AM »

Yeah, I think the purpose of even small cave-in risks is so that players won't take those risks with any strong consistency, it's an emergency maneuver. Of course there is the exception where tanky builds without extremely valuable low-integrity processors don't mind cave-in damage.

dodging behemoths in caves on a flight build, getting SHELL from the SHELL lab, digging into the Q exit prefab, etcetera.

But there's various ways for flight to deal with cave Behemoths and SHELL Lab without any digging. I know a good variety of them from experience, because sometimes I like to pretend that the games I play are already good instead of devolving to simple play patterns that shouldn't be possible/reasonable. To me this sound like you don't know those methods and have not thought much about them because of how easy and straightforward the tunnel strat is. I should be concrete here, so some off the top of my head are off-turn spotting, gui./hyp. baiting, drones/allies, ECM, recall(reinforcements), sheer ridiculous speed.

Just to go through those available options...

1) Off-turn spotting: often leads to actually being spotted and getting shot, inviting attrition or (everyone's favorite) getting an important utility shot off (noooo my sensors!)
2) Gui. / Hyp Baiting: Can be effective but often causes the enemy you're shooting to call out to other friends, has to be done carefully. Also I want to bring up the SHELL lab specifically where doing this will 100% get you scanned now.
3) Drones / Allies: Very effective, but you don't always have either of these... and maintaining allies on a flight build often does not work out well, since you are so much faster than them... you spend a lot of turns waiting for them to catch up to you.
4) ECM: Adv. and below is great in caves (unless you have thieves) and pretty good in 0b10, but can sometimes screw you if you didn't put enough distance between you and the enemy bots before activating and waiting. Exp. ECM is fantastic and very useful for the described situations.
5) Recall(reinforcements): This does not help with the enemy density that already exists on the floor... It simply acts as a way to correct mistakes you've made (like getting spotted by operators or attacking haulers / engis). Don't see how this helps in any of the above situations (other than maybe SHELL lab, but you're going to get scanned if you attack that researcher through the door).
6) Sheer ridiculous speed: Probably the most effective thing here, but this doesn't help with areas you are locked out of, like the SHELL lab.

I think the point is that every single one of these tools invites more shots being fired at you, which feels a lot like Bricc strategy... whereas digging fits better into the stealth style of gameplay. There are also several situations (like SHELL lab) where digging is your only effective means of countering whatever challenge the situation poses (I know you can disable the researcher with RIF, but we're talking about flight here, ok). While I admit the recent dig nerf has grown on me due to 3 tile digging still being possible via cannons (effectively meaning stealth just has to use a different dig tool now), I strongly oppose the proposed nerf of making all earth tiles possible to cave-in. Like pimski said, it doesn't sound like fun to have my run thrown due to a 5% cave-in chance destroying my builds most important items when that dig was one of the only ways to deal with a certain situation.

8

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: September 28, 2020, 02:35:39 PM »

I think there's been more than one mention of weird 0x3 memery at this point with the implication that they're not great so all's fine, so I think it's worth reaffirming that one of the main balance issues with current storage & weight is that e.g. 0x1 treads is oppressively good, with Hcp. you are almost forced into playing with BIG inventories and slower treads because of how good its interaction with 0x1 is.

If the issue isn't with builds carrying too much storage and being really overweight but is instead builds that are slightly overweight carrying too much storage, then it seems to me that the perfect fix is to adjust overweight penalties. Just throwing some numbers out here, but if you're currently 0x1 on treads and only 180 speed, perhaps you should actually be 200 or even 220 speed instead. This goes along with "incentivizing builds to be underweight" much more than just forcing them to use less storage. Overall if I want to make my build into a hauler I should be able to, even if the penalties of doing so are very great.

9

Ideas / Re: Balance Overhaul

« on: September 28, 2020, 11:23:04 AM »

Ok I'm allergic to the forums but I figured I'd jump in for at least one post... so here goes:

I want to mention that I'm against the idea of no_stack for storage and some of the other potential storage nerfs... I think there are a ton of builds that are only viable with an increased amount of storage, and in reality the only builds that are running extreme storage capacity are on wheels (a prop specifically designed to carry a ton of mass, like storage) or treads (which already gets significant overweight penalties). I know I keep saying speed is an irrelevant stat (tm), but I don't think many people would think that my 250 move speed 2-prop treads build with a ton of storage is very good. Playing this overweight is actually a huge detriment to a build, with the benefit being that later in the game you can do some truly awe inspiring stuff... My BFG + double wardrone + MAU + plasma storm run comes to mind

None of this is to say that we shouldn't make some modifications to the current mass support / storage balance. I'm definitely in favor of adding some more overweight penalties to treads and probably legs (wheels are designed for being overweight, I think they are fine). There was also some interesting discussion on the discord about an idea to further incentivize being underweight, and that is underweight multiplier bonuses. Just like 0x1 overweight brings a malus, perhaps being 0x-1 should give some special bonuses based on prop? Can even extend this with further underweight multipliers, meaning the more underweight your build, the more effective it is overall. Nothing concrete here yet, just an interesting thought that I wanted to document

IMO some of the most fun items in the game are multiple item slots, and these proposed storage changes will basically remove them from any viability whatsoever. Yes we could modify them so they are less slots, but I personally think that is less interesting overall. It would be a shame if the game removed all hoarder abilities and made cogmind focus on being purely a scavenger every game... while that playstyle is fun, it is not objectively more fun than others than currently exist.

TLDR; Storage doesn't need a nerf, maybe overweight penalties could change to make hauler builds more difficult (even though they're already not great), and if we really want to make changes here we should incentivize being underweight rather than remove the ability to be significantly overweight.

10

Stories / Re: The Gunslinger run, and my first attempt at Extended Cogmind

« on: December 28, 2018, 07:31:45 PM »

Great writeup kyz! Congrats on fulfilling the bounty, I guess that means I"ll have to think up some more I thoroughly enjoyed the dramatic conclusion of this run, I've never seen MC so scared xD

11

General Discussion / Re: Build Classifications

« on: May 12, 2017, 03:14:56 PM »

Figured I'd throw out some of my ideas to spark some more conversation in this area...

Let me start by saying I don't like the idea of removing assimilate, even though it is incredibly powerful.. I say this mostly because it fits into the cogmind universe/lore so well. When I think of hacking, I think of turning a machine around from it's original purpose to do my bidding, and that's exactly what assimilate does. That said, the unhindered ability to assimilate everything you come across is way too powerful... you can just snowball an army out of control and easily win the game with such a strategy. I also do not like the new nerf, however, where your ability to assimilate / overload continually drops, as this makes combat hacking the only build in the game that continually gets worse as you use it, and it takes quite a hefty investment to even get to the point where you can assimilate the harder bots / prototypes... plus it is unsatisfying to "game" this new system and save your assimilates for a final level, it may be more optimal but to me it doesn't feel quite as fun anymore.

I have a couple of ideas on how to remedy this problem while removing the diminishing returns on combat hacks...

• Put some kind of cap on the number of allies you can maintain. This can either be a hard cap (undesirable, as it does not fit in with the atmosphere of the game), or some kind of soft cap. For example, maybe if you pass a certain threshold of allies (or aggregate ally rating), the complex quickly jumps up to near high security (or into high security): "WARNING: Invasion Force Detected, dispatching security forces"... Or, if you overload / hack a prototype bot of any variety, the complex reacts by shipping out extra extermination / intercept squads, quickly overwhelming you with numbers that not even a few ally proto bots can deal with.
• Upon a successful overload / assimilate, add a random chance for equipped hackware (maybe only non-proto hackware?) to be fried... Unless you are prepared and have brought a bunch of extra hacking suites (encouraging fabbing strategy), overuse of these hacks will quickly fry your ability to continue the snowball effect, while still leaving you the ability to potentially deal with weaker bots via combat hacking if you lose a lot of hackware.
• Reduce the effectiveness of overload/assimiliate percentage wise(perhaps not working at all against prototype bots?), but add extra hacks that could be used as disablers allowing your army of weaker bots to fight protos... For example, one of the hacks suggested by zxc (detonates bot’s power source after x turns, or even instantly), a hack that can be used to disable parts of your choice on enemies (such as disabling a bots force fields, weapons, heat management), etc

I can see how splitting up hacking into three distinct builds could make sense, but considering we are talking about a world of robots here I instead envision hacking to be a "Jack of all trades, but master of none" build... However in A14 hacking had the "jack of all trades" part, but was a master of all it xD I would rather see hacking remain capable of handling any type of situation, but with reduced effectiveness across all.

Stay tuned for "more thoughts with MTF" to come...