Arcen Games

Games => Bionic Dues => Topic started by: Frumple on October 12, 2013, 02:27:45 PM

Title: Talking Turrets
Post by: Frumple on October 12, 2013, 02:27:45 PM
First post, AI War player since around January, somewhat active over on Bay 12, yadda yadda. Heard about Bionic Dues over here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=131875.0), tried the demo, nabbed the game. Been enjoying myself! But, after ridiculously curb stomping my first go at it (which, being fair, was a normal difficulty Meg game... I'm working my way up the higher difficulties now), I had to register and ask... is this intentional? Are sentry turrets meant to be able to basically trivialize the majority of the game?

For reference, here's two end game sentry turrets: Trap level 210 (http://www.upl.co/uploads/170365Welp.jpg), Trap level 326 (http://www.upl.co/uploads/And-326.jpg). Those were from that normal difficulty Meg game, taken on the pre-final and final missions, respectively. My science bot could deploy ~40 of them. Needless to say, really, I won that game :P The enemy bots actually disabled one during the final fight! I was pretty impressed. They didn't actually manage to destroy one, but they brought one down under 2k hp and stopped it from shooting! Kudos, stomped bots.

And here's the turrets my current hard game is using: Trap level 19 (http://www.upl.co/uploads/105961TS19.jpg), seven days into the game (without any command center hits, that is). Turret deployer can spit out 32 turrets per mission, currently. It's a Rey game, so there's no particular loot advantages. I hit trap skill 12 or so (which is around the point the turrets start outranging most bots) around day 4 or 5.

And, well. They, uh. They blow everything I encounter to bits. Plus they're fairly tanky (and I've got 30+ of them, for a total of 46,080(!) points of deployable shielding that the enemy bots totally don't mind spending ammo on), and all told they bring 620 shots of 12 range death to the table. At trap level 19, seven days into the game. That's a total of 460,800 points of damage, if fully used. Now, a lot of it doesn't get used (both because they're immobile, so some get left behind with ammo to spare as the mission progresses, and because I run out of enemies way, way, before those turrets run out of dakka), but... it's doing some work. To say the least.

So... is this how things are supposed to be working? And if not, well... ideas? You could have halved or quartered the stats on those end game ones and any one of them still could have tore huge chunks out of the final mission (and I had 40ish. On one bot. I could have had multiple bots like that, yesyes.). Halving that level 19 one would still leave something pretty nasty, especially considering I've got 32 of them and that eternally useful whistle. Maybe something could be done about the scaling, so they don't get quite so... silly? Something else entirely? Enemies specifically geared to deal with them Just... thoughts? Own experiences?

I can't say I'm not enjoying it, but... it is perhaps a little silly, ha.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Tridus on October 12, 2013, 02:51:53 PM
Believe it or not, someone wanted them buffed recently. :D

Trap level 300 seems crazy high, how did you manage that? The scaling was meant for much lower values of trap skill, if it's getting that high then something will need adjusting.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Frumple on October 12, 2013, 03:05:27 PM
Just piling on +X% propulsion and +trap skill... there wasn't really anything fancy or special to it. I was actually a fair bit unoptimized, with several slots going to other stuff -- like +X% computer skill or the turrets themselves, for the turrets to deploy, or +sensors so I could whistle the whole map down on my predeployed turrets. If I'd split the non-turret stuff (sensors, hacking... I did ultimately have one of my other exos pick up some of the slack, but my turret bot still had my highest hacking score at around 55 or so, and a sensor range in the sixties.) to another machine I could have gotten it even higher.

The only thing particularly out of line, such as it is, was that I was playing with Meg, so the parts themselves were a bit better quality than normal. But getting it over 100, over 200... it seems fairly trivial if you're aiming for it. You even have plenty of cash and kit left over to outfit your other bots, if for whatever reason you wanted to (I did have a siege bot with ~26 ammo for the shadow torpedo, ferex, among other things -- I used it to blow up doors from long range, so my whistles could reach further).
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Mick on October 12, 2013, 03:08:20 PM
I admit in my normal run, once I got trap up to a high enough point, it didn't seem worthwhile to do much else than lure things to turrets. I turreted the final mission, and I didn't have them nearly at the level you did, just doing 2000 damage a pop was enough.

If I was going to nerf them, I think I'd hit the amount of ammo they come with.

Turrets are like having mines that shoot at long range and can fire multiple times... why would you ever use mines?
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Darloth on October 12, 2013, 07:27:40 PM
I have similar feelings on turrets after completing one game as Meg, on Normal.

My ninja exo could deploy 30 or so at level 40, but even 6 or 7 turrets could, by themselves, entirely annihilate everything in an Assassination or Lion's Den mission, no questions asked.  Just deploy the turrets, switch to science to let off a huge sensor ping and then hold down space as everything trundles up to get shot at range 25.

The range really needs to go down, I think - they shouldn't ever be outranging the player's longest guns, and should ideally be sniped by sniper-bot-style enemies.

I'd also accept lower ammo counts... but I think I'd prefer higher ammo counts, shields and damage, and severely reduced deployment numbers (along with range normalized to standard enemy range).  Make mines something you can spam, but turrets something you might only have... say, five or six of.  Then their placement is more important, since their range isn't commanding anymore, but a well placed turret or two can still do wonders.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 07:31:20 PM

I'd also accept lower ammo counts... but I think I'd prefer higher ammo counts, shields and damage, and severely reduced deployment numbers (along with range normalized to standard enemy range).  Make mines something you can spam, but turrets something you might only have... say, five or six of.  Then their placement is more important, since their range isn't commanding anymore, but a well placed turret or two can still do wonders.

This is somethign I'd be in favor of. A great way to remove of "edge cases" will allowing some value to be only to allow only so many turrets at once. Great turret deployment numbers would allow to "reposition" turrets, but prevent the very exploitable situation of setting up over 20 turrets over one chokepoint.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Frumple on October 12, 2013, 08:03:38 PM
Heh. You usually only need two or three (if that) stacked within range of a corner the bots have to come around to wreck everything piecemeal, if it comes to that. Don't even remotely need 20 stacked up in one area... even with an open area, 4-6 will do. Deleting a half dozen bots per turn is generally more than enough :P

One thought, though, would be to have a much smaller max number of turrets as per Darloth's suggestion, but be able to redeploy them, probably keeping stats (ammo/shields) persistent across redeployments. Placement would still be important, but there'd be less incentive to slap everything down and lure the whole map into a single choke point. Might make 'em a bit more dynamic.* Sounds more annoying to code than just slashing numbers, unfortunately.

Different thought would be to keep things mostly as is, but have the turrets degenerate per turn (losing shielding and ammo, or maybe just the trap skill boosts), so you can't just slap a half dozen down, whistle, and do a lil'finger jig on the spacebar until everything's dead. Wouldn't be particularly fond of that, m'self, though.

As for which stat to drop, if not an overall reduction... range would actually be the one I'd be least concerned about, I think. It's ridiculous, yeah, but also the easiest low stat to completely or near completely mitigate via good placement (on most missions, anyway). Range two or range two hundred is functionally the same if the turrets are shooting things as they walk around corners. Deployment numbers and raw damage are probably the biggest issues, with shielding coming afterwards. Ammo's also a thing, but that's multiplied by raw amount of turrets.

Still. Capping turret range at, say, 15 or so might not be out of place. Low range is fairly easy to work around, but having absolute dominion over everything within line of fire of the 'rets is a bit much, heh.

*Side thought: Maybe one of the exos (or epic exos) could gain the ability to throw/deploy turrets a few spaces out? Brawler or somethin' should totes be able to judo toss enemy bots, anyway.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 08:23:11 PM
but there'd be less incentive to slap everything down and lure the whole map into a single choke point.

This has been my biggest complaints to turrets. Once you find a good choke, lure enemies toward chokes, kill, rinse and repeat. On low difficulties it is so repetitive they are ignored since it is not necessary, on high difficulties it is a no brainer since it is necessary. In practice, their usage is universal. Once one adapts to a given difficulty, they find ways to game turrets. Nerfing them won't remove the use of "whistle to chokepoint" method.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Frumple on October 12, 2013, 08:32:41 PM
Ehn... whistle to chokepoint method is pretty much the optimal strategy for everything, not just turrets. Mines, virus-using, long ranged attacks, close ranged attacks... everything. Cutting the enemy down to one or two critters at a time is almost always the best thing you can do. To boot, with stuff like the brawler's dissolver (anything AoE, really), you can even blow stuff up around corners (through walls, too, of course), almost completely mitigating any risk. So long as there's not a scorpionbot around, anyway.

That's... really just a basic facet of any game with highly asymmetrical numbers, though. Anything to make the match up closer to even is highly preferable.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Darloth on October 12, 2013, 08:34:44 PM
Some bots with unusually effective movement abilities (for ex: move 2 squares each action - do not shoot twice) might add a wrinkle there, though this really isn't the thread to suggest them I think :)
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Mick on October 12, 2013, 08:48:15 PM
There needs to be a way to nerf turrets without destroying their scalability completely. I don't think you can hit any one stat though.

If you upgrade turrets to a high level and manage to get them into a good location, then you should be rewarded for that. However, it seems that almost everywhere is a "good location", because turrets are so hard to overrun. High level = high ranger = less hits on the turrets (or none) as well as more shields. It feels a bit silly when a turret has a longer range than my sniper, hits harder than my siege bot, and has more shields than my assault. It's like a super exo!

Here are my thoughts.

- Put a timer on their attack, say they fire every four rounds or something. This means that you can no longer whistle the entire world and feel secure they can't get overrun because only 1-2 bots can get in range at a time.

- They should have very weak shields. You should be punished if you place them in a location where bots can actually reach them.

- Limited ammo, each placed turret is like the equivalent of a who new weapon worth of ammo on a exo, which sorta trivializes the whole ammo scarcity issues if you use them.

- I think it's OK if they have strong range, so probably not much tweaking there.

With the above changes, you may no longer be able to setup turrets and then go hide in a corner somewhere. If you lure enemies into a turret killzone, you may have to actually contribute to the fight yourself with your exos. With weak shields, they could be much more vulnerable to stealth bots and long range firing bots that can hit them, so you can't just brainlessly hit the next turn button.

Obviously the goal here shouldn't be to make turrets useless, but it should be to better define their role as a way to support your exos instead of replacing them.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Elcs on October 13, 2013, 07:25:35 AM
I felt cheap on Hard using Turrets with ~100/110 trap skill when I completed the final invasion at around Day 30 on my first complete playthrough. I had to do the final attack in 2 parts, in which I dropped maybe 90 turrets to take out around 350-400 bots (guess, not accurate)

Even despite their obvious power they still could find themselves having difficulty with the Doombots or Wyvernbots.

They seem to scale up perhaps too fast with +Trap Skill and realistically, they completely negate the usefulness of mines which I chose to use very early on and quickly realised where nowhere near as good as the aforementioned turrets. Not to mention that turrets became about twice as powerful as my single target exo abilities ANd they outranged/outammoed me too, as well as each one being sturdier :D

There's something "wrong" and I'd love to see it being balanced in the right way, whatever that may be.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Tridus on October 13, 2013, 08:25:21 AM
Back when we were talking about the turret stat growth, nobody considered trap skill numbers as big as we're seeing now. So most likely either the scaling per trap skill or the amount of trap skill going out is going to have to come down, for starters. (Even at 10% per point the numbers get really large when you've got 200 trap skill. Maybe the progression needs to be on a curve that slows down as you get more trap skill.)

The range increase they're getting needs to take a major nerf, or just go away entirely. Turrets should not outrange snipers, ever.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Histidine on October 13, 2013, 08:33:06 AM
Wasn't trap skill supposed to have been greatly reduced late in the alpha? >300 trap skill sounds like the numbers were changed in the wrong direction, actually.

Keith, what does it look like on your end?
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Penumbra on October 13, 2013, 10:58:55 AM
Could this be fixed with adding a diminishing returns mechanic to the stats?
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Waladil on October 13, 2013, 06:55:51 PM
I came to this forum just to discuss the OP-ness of turrets. My build that absolutely ROLLED hard (and would handle even harder difficulties with ease) called for one ninja exo, specced to turrets (with a minor in stealth actions), one science exo, specced to radar range and hacking (with a minor in viruses), and a siege exo specced to having lots and lots of shadow torpedos.

Now, I was playing with Genji 'cause I like my exos epic. But this was my second serious playthrough and I ended up curbstomping the game. As I got up to 40-50 radar range and 20+ trap skill (eventually reaching 130 or something), every mission I'd just drop a few turrets in the entry zone, swap to my science exo to get sensor readings, use the siege to blow up doors (Yeah. I used shadow torpedoes to blow up DOORS from the spawn point), and whistle in most of the level to my turrets.

Who would then proceed to massacre everything. Lion's Den missions, assassination runs, bot command centers, you name it. My turrets would one-shot most things, with tough things taking at most ~5 shots. Some bosses were kinda tough. After the main brunt was cleared out, I'd go in with a sniper exo or the rockets on the sieger to clear out those oddbots who don't path right, and if I saw anything scary I'd just whistle and scarper back to my mommy turrets. Or drop some more, since I was carting around plenty and never needed all of them.

Let me put it this way: I ran the numbers. My ninja had over 12,000,000 in potential damage by endgame. If I'd played differently (by playing out the endgame slowly, trying to boost trap level even higher) and perhaps started with a second ninja exo, I might have been able to kill a murderbot. Just outright kill him. They've got 100,000,000 health and are supposed to be "unkillable."

So as much as I hate to say it, turrets are kinda mad op, yo.

Oh, and my final mission... I almost lost. Almost. Teleporters were a new concept and I hadn't fully figured out tactics vis-a-vis them and that cost me a couple good bots, plus something about that mission (either the teleporters or the human reactors) was really screwing with AI pathing. Like they'd dance around at a corner, unable to decide if they wanted to come at me or the reactor. So that made the whole "sit and wait" plan less good. But eventully I managed to clear it on day one, with two barely-specced bots.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Logorouge on October 13, 2013, 10:40:57 PM
By the way, is it intended that you get cash when you kill your own turrets?
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: FrostyThePyro on October 14, 2013, 07:25:10 AM
Could this be fixed with adding a diminishing returns mechanic to the stats?

yes, by adding a root to the equation it can take signifignatly more trap points to gain higher level bonuses while still requiring only a few to get it started, this is a very sound aproach as trap skill effects many things on the turret resulting in an exponential growth of power instead of a geometric one, so adding a root reduces growth exponentialy, evening the overall power into somethin closer to geometric.   

Or you could set it to an absolute max limit with an equation like power=minpower+maxpower(level/(level+weight))    lets say you wanting the starting power to be 10, but you never wanted to go above 1010 (so mine power 10 max power 1000), and a weight of 100 (which is what level you reach 50% max) so at level 0 you would have 10 power, at level 50 you would have 343 power 50/(50+100) is 1/3, at level 100 you would have 510 power, at level 300 you would have 760, etc.  you would allways be aproaching but never reaching the max of 1010.

In the steam forum thread it has been sugested that having each exo have a unique style of turret may also work, weather its in the form of entirely new turrets (such as seige having long range, splash and realy poor ammo,  or ninja's being a decoy with realy high health and bots will prioritize attackin, science having no damage to speak of but a emp effect), or in the form of letting one or two of the the stats scale in an extreme fashion while the rest get nerfed down (for example a sniper exo gets to keep the extreme range scaleing we have now, and an assault gets to keep the extreme sheild scaling with other stats applying diminishing returns to be less curb stompy)


One thing that should be looked at if/when turrets are nerfed is ease of placement, being able to place turrets at a range, or being able to place multiple turrets at a time could help ease the issue of the slippery slope of turrets being too weak to bother with or being so strong as to trivialize the challange of the game.

Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Cherubael on October 14, 2013, 09:13:19 AM
I came to this forum just to discuss the OP-ness of turrets. My build that absolutely ROLLED hard (and would handle even harder difficulties with ease) called for one ninja exo, specced to turrets (with a minor in stealth actions), one science exo, specced to radar range and hacking (with a minor in viruses), and a siege exo specced to having lots and lots of shadow torpedos.

Now, I was playing with Genji 'cause I like my exos epic. But this was my second serious playthrough and I ended up curbstomping the game. As I got up to 40-50 radar range and 20+ trap skill (eventually reaching 130 or something), every mission I'd just drop a few turrets in the entry zone, swap to my science exo to get sensor readings, use the siege to blow up doors (Yeah. I used shadow torpedoes to blow up DOORS from the spawn point), and whistle in most of the level to my turrets.

Who would then proceed to massacre everything. Lion's Den missions, assassination runs, bot command centers, you name it. My turrets would one-shot most things, with tough things taking at most ~5 shots. Some bosses were kinda tough. After the main brunt was cleared out, I'd go in with a sniper exo or the rockets on the sieger to clear out those oddbots who don't path right, and if I saw anything scary I'd just whistle and scarper back to my mommy turrets. Or drop some more, since I was carting around plenty and never needed all of them.

Let me put it this way: I ran the numbers. My ninja had over 12,000,000 in potential damage by endgame. If I'd played differently (by playing out the endgame slowly, trying to boost trap level even higher) and perhaps started with a second ninja exo, I might have been able to kill a murderbot. Just outright kill him. They've got 100,000,000 health and are supposed to be "unkillable."

So as much as I hate to say it, turrets are kinda mad op, yo.

Oh, and my final mission... I almost lost. Almost. Teleporters were a new concept and I hadn't fully figured out tactics vis-a-vis them and that cost me a couple good bots, plus something about that mission (either the teleporters or the human reactors) was really screwing with AI pathing. Like they'd dance around at a corner, unable to decide if they wanted to come at me or the reactor. So that made the whole "sit and wait" plan less good. But eventully I managed to clear it on day one, with two barely-specced bots.

I ended up in much the same situation. First game (Normal/ironman/meg with standard setup), using the science exo for a combo of turrets and hacking, ended up being absolutely trivial with turrets. Thought 'eh, lets turn up the difficulty so they don't trivialize everyting' and tried Expert/ironman/genji I went with the ninja exo (for the 50% propulsion boost) speccing for around 15+ turrets per mission and maximum trap skill (though I ended up with more like 50 sentries at the end, because of the scaling).

End result? Sentry guns still kill everything and I finished the ironman/expert playthrough having lost one mission (Wasn't paying attention, ninja exo got oneshot before I had gotten more than two or three sentries down). Biggest difference seemed to be that it was quite tough in the first ~5 missions before I got the trap skill up, and the exo weapons simply did not scale to bot health in a meaningful way, so if the sentry exo died at the start of a mission it was basically game over.

So, whichever way is chosen, turrets absolutely need less scaling with trap skill. If you spec even a bit for it, you end up with sentries that have more durability than your assault exo, firing what amounts to sniper railgun shots for damage/range, with chaingun levels of ammo. And you can easily deploy 40 or 50 of them during a mission.

Personally I would be in favor of limiting the number of sentries per mission (maybe a fixed 2 sentries per module and +1 per "additional sentries" stat elsewhere, instead of scaling with module level?), so you end up being able to deploy around 5-15 per mission if you go for it. Then you could improve the baseline sentry gun abilities so they are useful at the beginning/lower difficulties sans trap skill and reduce their scaling to be on around the same level as weapon improvements.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: chemical_art on October 14, 2013, 09:39:42 AM
Could this be fixed with adding a diminishing returns mechanic to the stats?

yes, by adding a root to the equation it can take signifignatly more trap points to gain higher level bonuses while still requiring only a few to get it started, this is a very sound aproach as trap skill effects many things on the turret resulting in an exponential growth of power instead of a geometric one, so adding a root reduces growth exponentialy, evening the overall power into somethin closer to geometric.   

Or you could set it to an absolute max limit with an equation like power=minpower+maxpower(level/(level+weight))    lets say you wanting the starting power to be 10, but you never wanted to go above 1010 (so mine power 10 max power 1000), and a weight of 100 (which is what level you reach 50% max) so at level 0 you would have 10 power, at level 50 you would have 343 power 50/(50+100) is 1/3, at level 100 you would have 510 power, at level 300 you would have 760, etc.  you would allways be aproaching but never reaching the max of 1010.

In the steam forum thread it has been sugested that having each exo have a unique style of turret may also work, weather its in the form of entirely new turrets (such as seige having long range, splash and realy poor ammo,  or ninja's being a decoy with realy high health and bots will prioritize attackin, science having no damage to speak of but a emp effect), or in the form of letting one or two of the the stats scale in an extreme fashion while the rest get nerfed down (for example a sniper exo gets to keep the extreme range scaleing we have now, and an assault gets to keep the extreme sheild scaling with other stats applying diminishing returns to be less curb stompy)


One thing that should be looked at if/when turrets are nerfed is ease of placement, being able to place turrets at a range, or being able to place multiple turrets at a time could help ease the issue of the slippery slope of turrets being too weak to bother with or being so strong as to trivialize the challange of the game.

I don't like this, because enemies increase geometrically. Doing this would cause turrets to be OP in early game but fall off hard late game. Better to adjust how trap skill effects the stats directly.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: ScrObot on October 14, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
In the steam forum thread it has been sugested that having each exo have a unique style of turret may also work ...

I like the idea of different sentry types, I'd much rather see them as typed differently on the parts themselves rather than be exo type-specifc (although it's a whole additional slew of components to have to compare). Sure, it promotes having a varied exo line up, but I would rather not be shoehorned into only using an exo type for it's intended purpose -- perhaps I'm buffing up a Ninja exo with hacking and computers instead of bringing along a Science exo, etc.

Alternately, keep only one "type" of turret but add a different deployable type ("decoy"?) or two to fit the other proposed roles.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: FrostyThePyro on October 14, 2013, 03:49:32 PM

I don't like this, because enemies increase geometrically. Doing this would cause turrets to be OP in early game but fall off hard late game. Better to adjust how trap skill effects the stats directly.

Are you talking about the limits part, or the roots.  Both of which can be manipulated to give just about any curvature you like.   Though it should be noted that part of the issue is that turrets don't grow geometrically as it is, but exponentially, enemies and the players do as well in their ways.  If you double something's health and damage, you haven't doubled its power, but quadrupled it.  Ammo and range also factor in to that, and as they all key off of one stat for turrets it gets to be a bit of a god stat, especially a stat that can appear on just about any peace of equipment.  And with turrets you have the effect of dropping multiple turrets which is another exponential effect.  2 turrets are generally more than twice as good as 1 turret, and four turrets are more than twice as good as 2.


It should also be noted that with both systems its very easy to have early parts be near indistinguishable from a linear equation, and neither require any sort of starting multiplier (aka no effect on low trap level turrets compared to now).  On the limits, with a very high max and very high weight it will be nigh impossible to notice the difference until you get to very high trap stat (for a quick example weight 1000 and max of 1001 at trap level 50 you get an answer of 48, at level 100 you get an answer of 91, and at trap level 400 you get an answer of 286).  Similarly if using a root you will want to be using a low root, such as 1.1 or 1.05 or less.  In a similar example as above a 1.05 root will answer 41.5, 80.3, 300.7 at trap levels 50, 100, 400 respectively. 

That all said the official word is now

Quote
Ok, whew, Sentries were REALLY overpowered. Them being good is cool, but certain cheesemasters were trivializing high-difficulty endgames with 300+ trap skill, etc... wily players. Anyway:  Sentries no longer get an ammo boost from trap skill (unless they were already placed in an old save).
 Sentry range boost from trap skill is capped at 5 (max total range of 11) (unless they were already placed in an old save).
 The +TrapSkill effect now costs 4 item levels per point instead of 3 (from a player perspective this basically means trap skill values will be 33% lower on the items you find in the future, has no impact on items from old saves).
 The +%Propulsion-related effect's range from 12%-to-60% => 9%-to-45%. (again, won't affect items from old saves).
 The +SentryCount effect magnitude from 2+level => 1+(level/2) (same deal with old save items)
 Overall, with the +attack and +shields boost from trap skill still intact (albeit with lower trap skill, and fewer sentries to work on), these are quite possibly still too strong. We have a sneaking suspicion that players will find out and let us know.
 Thanks to Sooty, Misery, Frumple, Reasonance, Waladil, The_Ring-Bearer, Tridus, Mick, and others for inspiring these changes,

So it looks like they are primarily attacking the trap skill equipment.  though I am a little concerned with how the propulsion related effects part will impact stealth moves.  I may want to do an all ninja play through before this goes live.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: chemical_art on October 14, 2013, 04:26:23 PM
Not sure what to think of the range changes. the very chessmasteries who abuse turrets most knoww w how to setup chokes that don't need that range. doesn't reduce their cheese but hurt casual use more.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: chemical_art on October 14, 2013, 05:13:57 PM
Will flesh out the idea later, but perhaps the trap skill itself is too broad. It seems if it was split a little bit the traps could have a few strengths based on build rather them being good everything.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Teal_Blue on October 14, 2013, 05:29:20 PM
There needs to be a way to nerf turrets without destroying their scalability completely. I don't think you can hit any one stat though.

If you upgrade turrets to a high level and manage to get them into a good location, then you should be rewarded for that. However, it seems that almost everywhere is a "good location", because turrets are so hard to overrun. High level = high ranger = less hits on the turrets (or none) as well as more shields. It feels a bit silly when a turret has a longer range than my sniper, hits harder than my siege bot, and has more shields than my assault. It's like a super exo!

Here are my thoughts.

- Put a timer on their attack, say they fire every four rounds or something. This means that you can no longer whistle the entire world and feel secure they can't get overrun because only 1-2 bots can get in range at a time.

- They should have very weak shields. You should be punished if you place them in a location where bots can actually reach them.

- Limited ammo, each placed turret is like the equivalent of a who new weapon worth of ammo on a exo, which sorta trivializes the whole ammo scarcity issues if you use them.

- I think it's OK if they have strong range, so probably not much tweaking there.

With the above changes, you may no longer be able to setup turrets and then go hide in a corner somewhere. If you lure enemies into a turret killzone, you may have to actually contribute to the fight yourself with your exos. With weak shields, they could be much more vulnerable to stealth bots and long range firing bots that can hit them, so you can't just brainlessly hit the next turn button.

Obviously the goal here shouldn't be to make turrets useless, but it should be to better define their role as a way to support your exos instead of replacing them.


Just a thought, but if you added a weapon 'cooldown' period, so the turrets don't just fire-fire-fire all the time, it might mitigate some of the problem with them being over-powered. I am not sure how much. I suppose it depends on how long a cool down, and whether or not any other stats, such as distance, ammo, shields, gun strength are lowered or not.

-Teal

Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: FrostyThePyro on October 14, 2013, 06:32:33 PM
There needs to be a way to nerf turrets without destroying their scalability completely. I don't think you can hit any one stat though.

If you upgrade turrets to a high level and manage to get them into a good location, then you should be rewarded for that. However, it seems that almost everywhere is a "good location", because turrets are so hard to overrun. High level = high ranger = less hits on the turrets (or none) as well as more shields. It feels a bit silly when a turret has a longer range than my sniper, hits harder than my siege bot, and has more shields than my assault. It's like a super exo!

Here are my thoughts.

- Put a timer on their attack, say they fire every four rounds or something. This means that you can no longer whistle the entire world and feel secure they can't get overrun because only 1-2 bots can get in range at a time.

- They should have very weak shields. You should be punished if you place them in a location where bots can actually reach them.

- Limited ammo, each placed turret is like the equivalent of a who new weapon worth of ammo on a exo, which sorta trivializes the whole ammo scarcity issues if you use them.

- I think it's OK if they have strong range, so probably not much tweaking there.

With the above changes, you may no longer be able to setup turrets and then go hide in a corner somewhere. If you lure enemies into a turret killzone, you may have to actually contribute to the fight yourself with your exos. With weak shields, they could be much more vulnerable to stealth bots and long range firing bots that can hit them, so you can't just brainlessly hit the next turn button.

Obviously the goal here shouldn't be to make turrets useless, but it should be to better define their role as a way to support your exos instead of replacing them.


Just a thought, but if you added a weapon 'cooldown' period, so the turrets don't just fire-fire-fire all the time, it might mitigate some of the problem with them being over-powered. I am not sure how much. I suppose it depends on how long a cool down, and whether or not any other stats, such as distance, ammo, shields, gun strength are lowered or not.

-Teal


On a similar thought to cool downs you could make turrets a collective entity, by which I mean all turrets collectively share one action (so no mater how many turrets you have out only one will shoot per turn).  placing multiple turrets would simply give the turret collective a broader selection of firing angles(in addition to the obvious ammo and shield benefits).



And if all else fails, turn turrets into a weapon, put it on the paper doll with 3 slots that can take shield and weapon equipment, but shield ones would effect the turret instead of the exo.  So instead of keyin off trap skill it would key off whatever equipment you put on it just like any given gun would, except this gun has a shield stat as well as damage/range/ammo. 
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Misery on October 14, 2013, 07:10:07 PM
Not sure what to think of the range changes. the very chessmasteries who abuse turrets most knoww w how to setup chokes that don't need that range. doesn't reduce their cheese but hurt casual use more.


On casual/easy/normal though, aside from not really needing the turrets in the first place, they're not going to be hurt too much by range changes, particularly as many enemies simply wont have much range.  Even on Expert though, a range of 11 is..... quite good, quite good indeed.  And turrets arent abusable just by chokepoints;  right now, they're *very* abusable by merely being at range, which gets extreme really fast.  Having to set up chokepoints to use them is actually rare.

The upcoming changes look good overall, but based on those I'm expecting these will still need more nerfing after that. 
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Winge on October 14, 2013, 10:27:31 PM
The upcoming changes look good overall, but based on those I'm expecting these will still need more nerfing after that.


I'm inclined to agree, although it's hard to say for sure.  The most obvious change would be to limit where trap skill appears again.  Right now, I'm seeing it in places it doesn't seem to belong, which is probably why people are able to stack it so high (OK, and the buffed +% Propulsion stat that I thought was too weak at one point).

IMO, only the following parts should be able to have Trap Skill:
1.  Propulsion-specific parts (Hover Thruster, Stealth Generator, Overload Circuit)
2.  Propulsion Boosters (NONE of the other boosters)

And maybe the following:
3.  Sentry Turret/Minelayer
4.  Reactor

Right now, it looks like I can get +Trap Skill on anything except Weapons and Shields parts, which makes it a little bit too easy to get.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Misery on October 15, 2013, 12:01:32 AM
The upcoming changes look good overall, but based on those I'm expecting these will still need more nerfing after that.


I'm inclined to agree, although it's hard to say for sure.  The most obvious change would be to limit where trap skill appears again.  Right now, I'm seeing it in places it doesn't seem to belong, which is probably why people are able to stack it so high (OK, and the buffed +% Propulsion stat that I thought was too weak at one point).

IMO, only the following parts should be able to have Trap Skill:
1.  Propulsion-specific parts (Hover Thruster, Stealth Generator, Overload Circuit)
2.  Propulsion Boosters (NONE of the other boosters)

And maybe the following:
3.  Sentry Turret/Minelayer
4.  Reactor

Right now, it looks like I can get +Trap Skill on anything except Weapons and Shields parts, which makes it a little bit too easy to get.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

And when you combine that with %propulsion boosts, it inflates way too much.  Being able to stack the percentage boosts makes sense and works for pretty much every other stat type, like attack damage, this being because nothing other than weapon parts gives any specific weapon a big blob of damage boosting.

It definitely should be propulsion-only, that stat.  It also makes the propulsion stuff in general just make more sense.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: BobTheJanitor on October 15, 2013, 12:12:52 AM
This gets to the loot vapor-lock problem of another thread. It's hard to optimize when it seems like every slot can have just about every stat. I would be all for stats in general being more focused, so that you know when you look at one system you're only going to see some specific stats, which thus makes it easier to compare loot. I'd be all for trap skills just going on certain slots, in the greater context of making all skills only found in certain slots.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: nas1m on October 15, 2013, 11:47:17 AM
This gets to the loot vapor-lock problem of another thread. It's hard to optimize when it seems like every slot can have just about every stat. I would be all for stats in general being more focused, so that you know when you look at one system you're only going to see some specific stats, which thus makes it easier to compare loot. I'd be all for trap skills just going on certain slots, in the greater context of making all skills only found in certain slots.
I would advocate this as well.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Teal_Blue on October 15, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
me too! 
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: MrMud on October 26, 2013, 10:54:20 AM
Just going to add my vote for nerfing sentries somehow.
Finished my first game on normal with sentries shooting for 6k at 80 range and with 10k hp. Missions basically consisted of whisling at max sensor range and then pressing spacebar a whole lot.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Logorouge on October 26, 2013, 12:10:25 PM
Just going to add my vote for nerfing sentries somehow.
Finished my first game on normal with sentries shooting for 6k at 80 range and with 10k hp. Missions basically consisted of whisling at max sensor range and then pressing spacebar a whole lot.
The sentry nerf update is already available, you just have to activate the beta in steam to get access to it. (Select game in steam, right-click, properties, Betas)
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: MrMud on October 26, 2013, 01:59:08 PM
Ah, great. I had checked the patchnotes for 1.002 but I didn't read 1.001
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 26, 2013, 02:06:11 PM
This gets to the loot vapor-lock problem of another thread. It's hard to optimize when it seems like every slot can have just about every stat. I would be all for stats in general being more focused, so that you know when you look at one system you're only going to see some specific stats, which thus makes it easier to compare loot. I'd be all for trap skills just going on certain slots, in the greater context of making all skills only found in certain slots.
Bear in mind that it's not true that just about every stat can go on every slot:

+Attack (not the +% one) is only for weapons
+Range is only for weapons
+Ammo is only for weapons
+Splash is only for weapons

+Shields can cross-over
+Regen can cross-over
+DR can cross-over

+%Attack can cross-over
+%Shields can cross-over
+%Propulsion can cross-over
+%Computer can cross-over
+%PowerGen can cross-over

+Stealth is only for propulsion
+Overload is only for propulsion
+TrapSkill can cross-over

+Sensors can cross-over
+Hacking is only for computers
+Virus is only for computers
+Sentries is only for computers
+Mines is only for computers

-PowerCostForRestOfSystem can cross-over

So of a grand total of 21 stats, 11 can cross-over and 10 cannot.

I certainly could make them all just never cross over, but that's going to MASSIVELY cut down on the variety of parts.  In fact I'll probably have to take out the extra effect from part "variants" (the ones that use a somewhat different image than the "base" type of the part) just because there won't be that many distinct effect types to go around.

And if we just reduce the number of cross-over stats (say, taking +%Propulsion and +TrapSkill out of the pool) that's going to make the others way more common overall.

So I actually don't mind removing the cross-over thing at all, and change this from being a sort of Torchlight-esque affair to something where the idea is that the parts are just fairly simple (more like bits of circuitry than enchanted vorpal broadswords), but I'm not sure if that's what folks actually want here.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: nas1m on October 26, 2013, 04:25:37 PM
My Impression is that managing parts with many Crossover effects got a lot easier using the new customization, so i would definitely be opposed to removing them altogether. Cutting them down a bit and/or limiting them to fewer Part types might be worth a try, though...
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 26, 2013, 05:49:57 PM
Cutting them down a bit and/or limiting them to fewer Part types might be worth a try, though...
I'm not sure you understand the impact that would have, though.  The fewer cross-slot effects, the more heavily each will be used.  If I pull +TrapSkill and +%Propulsion from the crossover list, that means that, for example, you'll see +%Computer about 20% more often.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: PokerChen on October 26, 2013, 07:27:44 PM
I'd vote for no change at this stage in the stats cross-over.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 26, 2013, 07:30:09 PM
Yea, I've left "which stats can crossover" alone, but went ahead and suppressed the variant-caused effects and left the non-core modifiers to the prefixes and suffixes.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: Winge on October 26, 2013, 09:59:48 PM
I'd vote for no change at this stage in the stats cross-over.

Second.  I think we would need more effects for each portion of the Exo (Weapons, Propulsion, Computer) in order for it to work well without being REALLY repetitive.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: FrostyThePyro on October 27, 2013, 03:40:11 AM
This gets to the loot vapor-lock problem of another thread. It's hard to optimize when it seems like every slot can have just about every stat. I would be all for stats in general being more focused, so that you know when you look at one system you're only going to see some specific stats, which thus makes it easier to compare loot. I'd be all for trap skills just going on certain slots, in the greater context of making all skills only found in certain slots.
Bear in mind that it's not true that just about every stat can go on every slot:

+Attack (not the +% one) is only for weapons
+Range is only for weapons
+Ammo is only for weapons
+Splash is only for weapons

+Shields can cross-over
+Regen can cross-over
+DR can cross-over

+%Attack can cross-over
+%Shields can cross-over
+%Propulsion can cross-over
+%Computer can cross-over
+%PowerGen can cross-over

+Stealth is only for propulsion
+Overload is only for propulsion
+TrapSkill can cross-over

+Sensors can cross-over
+Hacking is only for computers
+Virus is only for computers
+Sentries is only for computers
+Mines is only for computers

-PowerCostForRestOfSystem can cross-over

So of a grand total of 21 stats, 11 can cross-over and 10 cannot.

I certainly could make them all just never cross over, but that's going to MASSIVELY cut down on the variety of parts.  In fact I'll probably have to take out the extra effect from part "variants" (the ones that use a somewhat different image than the "base" type of the part) just because there won't be that many distinct effect types to go around.

And if we just reduce the number of cross-over stats (say, taking +%Propulsion and +TrapSkill out of the pool) that's going to make the others way more common overall.

So I actually don't mind removing the cross-over thing at all, and change this from being a sort of Torchlight-esque affair to something where the idea is that the parts are just fairly simple (more like bits of circuitry than enchanted vorpal broadswords), but I'm not sure if that's what folks actually want here.

Though I am not convinced that crossover effects need to be removed, or even turned down, a possible compromise (if its decided it needs to be done) would be to have things that are crossing over be of a lesser quality.  for example trap skill on propulsion (its native environment)  would give +10, but trap skill on computer (a cross over environment) would give +5.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 27, 2013, 09:02:48 AM
a possible compromise (if its decided it needs to be done) would be to have things that are crossing over be of a lesser quality.  for example trap skill on propulsion (its native environment)  would give +10, but trap skill on computer (a cross over environment) would give +5.
The difficulty there is that the item is basically gimping itself to take those stats cross-slot.  There's enough to consider when looking at a part without having to ask "does this have a cross-slot stat and thus is giving less overall oomph than parts that don't?", I think :)
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: FrostyThePyro on October 27, 2013, 12:11:45 PM
a possible compromise (if its decided it needs to be done) would be to have things that are crossing over be of a lesser quality.  for example trap skill on propulsion (its native environment)  would give +10, but trap skill on computer (a cross over environment) would give +5.
The difficulty there is that the item is basically gimping itself to take those stats cross-slot.  There's enough to consider when looking at a part without having to ask "does this have a cross-slot stat and thus is giving less overall oomph than parts that don't?", I think :)

I thought parts had some sort of internal point buy system going for them.  Wouldn't you be able to give the cross-slot bonuses a smaller point cost, leaving more points for the other bonuses on that part during generation?  cross slot will give lower values, but that oomph would then be available for the other stats on the item during its generation.

Admitidly my understanding of part generation is vauge at best.
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 27, 2013, 01:34:05 PM
a possible compromise (if its decided it needs to be done) would be to have things that are crossing over be of a lesser quality.  for example trap skill on propulsion (its native environment)  would give +10, but trap skill on computer (a cross over environment) would give +5.
The difficulty there is that the item is basically gimping itself to take those stats cross-slot.  There's enough to consider when looking at a part without having to ask "does this have a cross-slot stat and thus is giving less overall oomph than parts that don't?", I think :)

I thought parts had some sort of internal point buy system going for them.  Wouldn't you be able to give the cross-slot bonuses a smaller point cost, leaving more points for the other bonuses on that part during generation?  cross slot will give lower values, but that oomph would then be available for the other stats on the item during its generation.

Admitidly my understanding of part generation is vauge at best.
Sure, it could just get a "refund" on that part and put it in the other stats, but I hadn't thought you were saying that :)
Title: Re: Talking Turrets
Post by: nas1m on October 27, 2013, 03:02:29 PM
Cutting them down a bit and/or limiting them to fewer Part types might be worth a try, though...
I'm not sure you understand the impact that would have, though.  The fewer cross-slot effects, the more heavily each will be used.  If I pull +TrapSkill and +%Propulsion from the crossover list, that means that, for example, you'll see +%Computer about 20% more often.
Now that I think of it what I really meant was that reducing the number of overall effects a given part has (no matter if it's crossover or not) would be worth a try. Which is what you did :). Cheers!