Topic: Large volleys considered harmful *spoiler* (Read 6307 times)

Decker · « **on:** December 18, 2015, 12:13:39 PM »

Quote

Time will tell whether or how abuseable it is, but preliminary testing says it's 1) hella fun and 2) didn't seem so overpowered that it ensured success by any measure, considering what you have to give up to attach that many weapons.

o_O

There's a good reason it doesn't seem overpowered: these changes actually work against you!

Firepower increase since alpha 4:
- 2 slots: 325/300 => +8%.
- 3 slots: 425/325 => +31%.

Hence, in Factory, those hunters and programmers get a +8% damage bonus against you. In Research, thoses bonuses become +31% for terminators and behemoths. Of course, your own firepower also increases, but there's just one of you and many of them. Finding good cover is now even more important, but having good mobility is harder with the heavier storage units. Combine that with the alert(purge) nerf, and combat just got more challenging.

Don't get me wrong: I love that the game is becoming harder.

So, let's talk about volleys. The balance of the game currently sorts these combat variables in the following order of importance:
1) Mobility.
2) Churn rate balance.
3) Inventory size.
4) Integrity + coverage.
5) Exit-finding capabilities.
6) Firepower.

What happens if you confuse ranks 6) and 1) and equip 6 weapons? You get a glass cannon that runs afoul of the food clock and lacks the mobility to deal with the consequences.

Behold.

[Alert] Weapon churn rate HIGH.
[Alert] Alert level HIGH -- HURRY UP.

*Cogmind exploring*
Grunt detected.

*Engaging target*
sssssswwwwwwwwwooooooooooorrrrrrccccCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Target down!!

Grunt detected.
Grunt detected.
Grunt detected.

[DANGER] Engagement OUT IN THE OPEN.

*Engaging hostile 1*
sssssswwwwwwwwwooooooooooorrrrrrccccCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Target down!!

Pink!
Ponk!
ARC deploys payload.
ARC deplays payload.

[CRITICAL] Unsustainable conditions. RETREAT RETREAT RETREAT.
[CRITICAL] Current speed 180 -- TOO SLOW.
[CRITICAL] OVERRIDE -- HEAD FOR NEARBY DOOR AT ALL COSTS.

*Moving*
Pink! Pink! Pong!
Weapon 4 down.

*Moving*
Pang!

*Moving*
Trrrrfgh! Trrrrgh!
Propulsion 1 down.

[CRITICAL] Sustaining HEAVY DAMAGE.

*Moving*
Puck! PLONK! Tff! Tff!
Weapon 3 down.
Weapon 5 down.

*Moving past door*
*Equip*
*Equip*
*Equip*
Pang! Pffft!

*Equip*
Pink! Pink! Pong!

[CRITICAL] KILL FAST

*Engaging hostile 2*
sssssswwwwwwwwwooooooooooorrrrrrccccCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Target down!!

Puck! Puck!
Weapon 6 down.
Secret door opened.

[PANIC] Engagement OUT IN THE OPEN.

*Equip*
Pink! Pink! Pong! Puck! PLONK! Tff! Tff!
Weapon 3 down.
Weapon 2 down.

[PANIC] ...
*Cogmind emits distress signal*

In contrast, in the above scenario, a mobile war bot would use its speed to retreat and fight in a good spot. You can "live off the land" for a long time by vacuuming the items that roll under your feet in a tight corridor. Picking up / equipping items aggressively as they appear (even if it's junk) goes a long way to keep supplies high. That works best if your churn rates are balanced in each category. On average you'll get the items that you need. Being mobile, you can also afford to move under fire to pick up critical items before they disappear.

Example of a mobile war bot.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Stats (buggy score).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Notice that I'm only using one power source. That's enough to fully sustain two heat sinks, two energy weapons and one kinetic weapon. It's also enough (barely) to power 3-4 hover units as well as terrain scanner/processor outside combat. Adding another power source is not possible without compromising storage, firepower or mobility. The heat sinks are swapped with the terrain scanner/processor every fight.

Sensors: not useful enough to justify the power/slot/inventory/matter/time costs.

Combat utilities: none. I don't have power to spare. I'm not missing much. Combat utilities are low integrity, low coverage, power-draining, hard-to-replace parts. It's a bad combination right there. Besides, only a few top-tier utitilies are useful. Would you really spend a slot for a +4% targetting bonus?

Armor isn't much better. It's heavy, hot, rare, and churns like crazy. Most of the pieces you find are made of recycled paper. 3x slots for 300 total integrity? Riiiiight. The one redeeming feature is that armor protects your core with high coverage. Then again, if you don't find armor, you have to fill the utility slot with junk and *that* compromises your core integrity. In the long run, I feel that armor makes you more vulnerable. In my next game, I'll ditch armor on Factory and replace it with storage. At least it's useful and helps to take off some weight pressure.

[Edit] Ended up using just 6 utility slots and added another propulsion unit. Worked like a charm.

To wrap it up, time is working against you, fighting out in the open is suicidal, and sluggishness makes chute traps deadly rather than a boon. Adding more legs/treads makes you slower, not faster. Put two and two together and get airbone. Or else.

Kyzrati · « **Reply #1 on:** December 18, 2015, 08:40:02 PM »

Whoa, that's a lot of info.

I disagree on many points, though, even your ordered list of important combat variables.

For me inventory space is not invaluable, nor is mobility in most cases if you're thinking about where conflicts will likely happen before they actually do, and make sure you're in the right position. (On a related note, if you look at Cogmind as a pure numbers game, you'll be omitting the non-quantifiable value of information in warfare, e.g. that gained through sensors and hacking.)

With the added firepower you can now be set up to one-shot anything, including even Behemoths. The effect is even deadlier when you properly line up hostiles!

This, however, is very true:

Quote

Of course, your own firepower also increases, but there's just one of you and many of them. Finding good cover is now even more important

But that's always been an important factor in play, and one of the main reasons less experienced Cogminds go down more easily.

I'd forgotten that Terminators also have three weapons, though, which is something I'll want to address, because three-weapon hostiles are going to be a bit too powerful under this system. Behemoths, on the other hand, I think are fine with a bit of a boost, because they've been fairly weak overall, and aren't incredibly common.

Quote

Armor isn't much better. It's heavy, hot, rare, and churns like crazy. Most of the pieces you find are made of recycled paper.

This has somewhat changed, because before Alpha 5 enemy criticals were doing double damage to your armor, which could rip it up pretty quickly when fighting some of the more dangerous yet still common hostiles (Hunters, Programmers).

Quote

3x slots for 300 total integrity?

That's an extreme case! There's only one such part--Reactive Heavy Armor, which makes all of your parts nearly half-immune to the most common form of damage in the game! With that many slots it should possibly either be better or have its slot count reduced. Slot space is a very valuable stat, after all, though such a change might require expanding one of its other drawbacks.

A large part of the reason you're able to sustain your recent builds is that propulsion had its integrity vastly increased in an earlier alpha, somewhat destabilizing the original balance because you can effectively use it as free armor. (Armor used to be without question the sole best way to increase your overall resilience.)

Possible solutions:

Inactive propulsion does count towards your mass total. This is something I've been avoiding from the beginning because it would make everything a bit too complex for the player.
Reduce coverage of inactive propulsion to 0.

I like the rundown and your tank pic

Decker · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2015, 08:28:44 AM »

Looking back at what I wrote, I see that I could've been more diplomatic in my wording. I apologize for that.

Quote

I disagree on many points, though, even your ordered list of important combat variables.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that we're looking at the game from two opposite viewpoints. Yours is the optimistic viewpoint. You don't care about mobility and inventory so much because you're good enough to reliably choose the terms of engagement and find the exit before running out of time. Then large volleys make total sense. If you do have to make a stand, it's best to take down the enemy as fast as possible.

I think I finally understand the logic behind the combat utilities. They're not meant to carry you through hell, they're meant to make you more effective in a limited engagement under favorable conditions. Then, the incoming firepower is limited, so your utilities and armor last a long time.

My own approach to combat is pessimistic. I'm a good strategist but a sloppy player. I play too fast, make mistakes. Thus my build is designed to cope when things have gone south. Mobility helps when I get unexpectedly surrounded. High inventory helps when I'm forced to make a stand on a bad spot.

The true aim of the build is to survive on alert level 4-5. I often play for score and intentionally go and stir up trouble. Also, the alert level skyrockets when I can't find the exit and I'm forced to stay on a floor for a long time. My sorted combat variables are specific to the high alert level scenario.

1) Dash to cover when spotting incoming ARCs, explore frantically when there's a lull.
2) The enemy becomes the main supply source. The churn rates must be compatible with that.
3) The supply situation is chaotic. High reserves help to survive a dry spell.
4) The core and the parts must absorb an intense amount of incoming damage. Brittle parts won't do.
5) I'll eventually die if I don't find the exit soon.
6) I must take down enemies as fast as possible. Large volleys obviously help, alas they're not compatible with the requirements above.

That's why I don't think much of the combat utilities and armor. They're long gone when I most need them.

Quote

Possible solutions:
Inactive propulsion does count towards your mass total. This is something I've been avoiding from the beginning because it would make everything a bit too complex for the player.
Reduce coverage of inactive propulsion to 0.

[Significant abuse of game mechanics detected! Programmer dispatched.]

Which problem are you trying to solve here? The free armor part or the high mobility part?

With the second solution, my hover units are invulnerable when I make a stand. I think that would actually work in my favor. I hate running out of hover units (and storage parts).

The first solution would definitely force me on the slow path. I don't know if it would really help with the free armor part, though. I'd just cover myself with legs.

Personally I hope that the mobile combat bot remains an option. It does already require many sacrifices.

Kyzrati · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2015, 08:57:01 AM »

Quote

I'll go out on a limb here and say that we're looking at the game from two opposite viewpoints. Yours is the optimistic viewpoint. You don't care about mobility and inventory so much because you're good enough to reliably choose the terms of engagement and find the exit before running out of time. Then large volleys make total sense. If you do have to make a stand, it's best to take down the enemy as fast as possible.

I think I finally understand the logic behind the combat utilities. They're not meant to carry you through hell, they're meant to make you more effective in a limited engagement under favorable conditions. Then, the incoming firepower is limited, so your utilities and armor last a long time.

My own approach to combat is pessimistic. I'm a good strategist but a sloppy player. I play too fast, make mistakes. Thus my build is designed to cope when things have gone south. Mobility helps when I get unexpectedly surrounded. High inventory helps when I'm forced to make a stand on a bad spot.

That sounds like a very good assessment. I was mostly reacting to the fact that it sounded like you weren't leaving any leeway for these other strategies, which do work, just not necessarily for you the way you like to play

I like the idea of stirring up trouble, but by comparison your desire to survive on maximum alert level is quite a lofty goal and I can see why you'd have to try to find every way possible to optimize a build for doing that!

Quote from: Decker on December 19, 2015, 08:28:44 AM

Quote
Possible solutions:
Inactive propulsion does count towards your mass total. This is something I've been avoiding from the beginning because it would make everything a bit too complex for the player.
Reduce coverage of inactive propulsion to 0.
[Significant abuse of game mechanics detected! Programmer dispatched.]

He's here! He's here!

Quote from: Decker on December 19, 2015, 08:28:44 AM

Which problem are you trying to solve here? The free armor part or the high mobility part?

Free armor. I never really liked that aspect of the system, and as mentioned it originally wasn't a problem when legs and treads had much lower integrity--you'd still prefer having armor to protect them.

I'll admit I've carried treads around as makeshift armor before, and I thought it was a cheap exploitative tactic, but it wasn't such a big deal in small numbers and I liked the versatility that provides in terms of options to quickly switch between forms of propulsion when you're carrying multiple types.

It would be unfortunate to lose that flexibility.

I can see how a coverage change could even work in your favor here.

The mass-based solution is the more extreme one, but I dislike it from a player convenience perspective, because then activating or deactivating a single propulsion part changes not one number, but two (both mass and support), and then you have issues like temporarily disabled propulsion suddenly causing drag (which is an interesting challenge in itself, but could make some situations a lot more deadly).

Quote from: Decker on December 19, 2015, 08:28:44 AM

Personally I hope that the mobile combat bot remains an option. It does already require many sacrifices.

I do see the sacrifices and won't do anything about this just yet. Free armor from so many treads is the main thing I don't like. (The more I look at it it's an interesting strategy! I wonder how many people would want to play this way, actually, besides you

)

Note there will be a propulsion overhaul at some point (I'm thinking Alpha 6), and I'll take this into account when the time comes. Probably within the next week I'll start looking at all this.

Shobalk · « **Reply #4 on:** February 29, 2016, 11:36:19 PM »

My Decker run begins!

Follow along as I try my hand at Decker's mobile combatant Cogmind. I'll be talking though strategy, crying a lot, and enjoying one of my favorite games.

Youtube Playlist - The Deck Run

Kyzrati · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2016, 08:41:17 AM »

Ha, a "Decker Run"

This should be interesting to see how someone else fares with the same strategy. Decker's all about exploring crazy game-breaking strategies... are you getting desperate for a win, Shobalk?

Edit: Oh, and for anyone wondering about the OP/thread topic on large volleys, all of my own legitimate wins have all come from using massive volleys and obliterating everything in my path--it does work!

Shobalk · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2016, 09:13:47 AM »

Quote from: Kyzrati on March 01, 2016, 08:41:17 AM

This should be interesting to see how someone else fares with the same strategy. Decker's all about exploring crazy game-breaking strategies... are you getting desperate for a win, Shobalk?

I'd like to make it to -1 first. Baby steps!

I'm giving this a go mainly because of the uniqueness of the build. It breaks so many of the conventions that I go usually with. 1 power slot!? 26 storage!? Hovering!? As Decker mentioned, this build is focused around surviving high alert levels, often caused by careless play. I find myself in this situation pretty often from -5 to -2.

At that very least it's been fun so far. I think I need to get a little more meta knowledge of the game to truly begin to make a run at winning.

Decker · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2016, 06:13:50 PM »

Wow! Very interesting run!

I learned something new -- you can color items in tile mode!

As you mentioned, though, it's a different game in alpha 6. The inability to swap processors/hackware forced me to allocate more utilities in my recent builds. I now run with 2 power sources, 4-5 weapons, and fewer propulsion units. I even use some armor when I find it. I sometimes ditch hover units in Research if all is going well (hover units are still a must in Factory due to chute traps).

I'm ambivalent toward large volleys. Four cannons generate so much heat that you need a crazy number of heat sinks to cover for them. Of course, you can go with many small kinetic guns, but it's less efficient with matter, slots, and recoil.

This weekend I'm working on my volley simulator for at least a couple hours -- it's about time I got some hard numbers!

Quote

Decker's all about exploring crazy game-breaking strategies

I laughed out loud at that one. I can see why it seems that way from your perspective. Really, I'm just trying to find a reliable way to win!

Kyzrati · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2016, 07:54:41 PM »

I'll admit in my most recent win I wasn't able to fully utilize my 7 weapon slots a lot of the time. I usually had about 3-4 operational weapons. Though once rebuilt in the final two floors I did have a full array of guns, which are pretty deadly when combined with a few applicable utilities. A full array of cannons is tough to support, but it's really nice to have a 3~4-cannon volley when confronting the more deadly combat robots, since you can dispatch them much more quickly through concentrated damage.

Grid Sage Forums

News:

Author Topic: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler (Read 6307 times)

Decker

Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Kyzrati

Re: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Decker

Re: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Kyzrati

Re: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Shobalk

Re: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Kyzrati

Re: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Shobalk

Re: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Decker

Re: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Kyzrati

Re: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler

Grid Sage Forums

News:

Author Topic: Large volleys considered harmful *spoiler* (Read 6307 times)

Author Topic: Large volleys considered harmful spoiler (Read 6307 times)