Friday Facts #427 - Combat Balancing & Space Age LAN

[Tertius]

2. There's a very significant difference between automation and laziness. Factorio is not simply about automation. The depth in Factorio comes from deciding what and when to automate. There is a lot more to the game than "figure out how to make the factory go brr", you need to manage resources, build a base somewhat strategically to fend off attacks, and generally engage with deep systems and mechanics in order to automate in a meaningful and fun way.

You have a point here. You're seeing the game as a whole. I guess this view corresponds to how the developers envisioned their game from the start and as a whole.

However, you mentioned fun, and mechanics that destroy parts of my factory isn't fun for me personally. I don't share the whole vision. Call me strange, but it's deep inside me. It's not that I'm not proficient enough to handle enemies. Many might be discouraged, because their whole base gets destroyed, because they didn't prepare.

For me, if just some production line of my factory gets destroyed by some ravaging biters, with my character present at the other end of the factory and unable to do anything about that, I press ALT-F4, close the game and go watching TV. Then I think about tomorrow how I would load the last save and prepare for that attack. The next day, I think again how to prepare to avoid the attack. The day next to that as well, and then a week and even a month is gone without me starting the game even once. It happens I start a new map or play in map editor to improve some blueprint, but I avoid playing that specific map. Technically, it's very simple to prepare against that attack: just hurry to that point in advance and bring a few turrets and ammo. But I don't start that map.

The same thing (ALT-F4) happens if I die while manually cleaning nests. This is even worse, because I have to pick my armor and all stuff from my body within a time limit, and to get it, I have to fight the same enemies again, this time without the advanced weapons and armor. Or any progress in clearing worms/nests is reset if I load a save from before the fight.

I asked myself why this happens, but the only answer I found is that it is no fun to handle this situation, and since I play games for fun, this map is tainted and no fun in that moment. I will not force myself to play some game mechanics that is no fun for me. Never again. I did that in some MMO, and I realized playing games without feeling fun is a waste of life time, and there is nothing more precious than life time.

It's a very specific analysis, and I don't know if others feel similar, but since many people confess they're turning off enemies, there might be something to it.

The only reason I want to keep enemies activated is that a significant part of the game is made for them: all the military tech would be wasted. It's a pity. And slightly frustrating to see that development time goes into game features I genuinely don't enjoy.

[Alice3173]

I asked myself why this happens, but the only answer I found is that it is no fun to handle this situation, and since I play games for fun, this map is tainted and no fun in that moment. I will not force myself to play some game mechanics that is no fun for me. Never again. I did that in some MMO, and I realized playing games without feeling fun is a waste of life time, and there is nothing more precious than life time.

Similar situation for me. I stopped playing MMOs because my friends would become so obsessive about them they'd basically turn it into a full-time job (despite having full-time jobs) and it very quickly stops being fun and starts becoming tedious. It's one thing to play it a few hours at a time a few times per week. It's a totally different scenario to play it 4+ hours per day, every single day.

Some people enjoy that and others don't and it actually seems to be a major disconnect between people on subjects like this. For example: The Dark Souls and Dwarf Fortress types of players where the entire concept is that failing is somehow fun. I don't get that mindset at all. If I wanted to struggle through everything I do, I'd just go back to real life. I play games to escape that crap but others seem to play to get more of it or something that just totally doesn't mesh with me in a fundamental way to the point where I can't even see where they're coming from.

[XT-248]

*snipped*

That said, adding "micro-intensive" gameplay like stutter-stepping probably isn't a good fit for Factorio either. Stutter-stepping adds a degree of mechanical skill to the game, which maybe some people would want, but Factorio's is designed to be a more macro-intensive game overall, with the focus on managing a huge base and less on individual movements. Outside of mechanical skill, stutter stepping doesn't really add any depth to Factorio (or Starcraft 2, I would argue) in terms of tactical decision making or high-level gameplay, it's simply a skill check.

A better approach for making PLD more hands-on would probably involve some sort of tactical decision making or resource management surrounding it. For instance, a hotkey to toggle PLD on or off, similar to the personal roboport, with a mechanic where it would "overheat" if fired too many times in quick succession. This would force the player to enable and disable it tactically and rely on more traditional weapons for smaller enemies where the PLD would be wasted.

As for Artillery, I'm mostly okay with it. Honestly the combat on Nauvis could be made a lot more interesting overall, but I feel like this is more related to fundamental issues with the Biter gameplay, rather than Artillery being boring.

I agree that making 'micro-intensive' gameplay an opt-in mechanics is better than a mandatory 'skill check.'

Isn't 'toggling' personal laser defense on and off manually just another form of micro? On top of the stutter-stepping movement to dodge projectiles from worms? Which would result in more 'micro-intensive' gameplay when both are present together in-game?

I feel the Artillery Weapon only poses a small negligent risk to a proper late-game defense perimeter and doesn't add much novel automation beyond what players have been doing with their pre-Artillery defense wall (roboport + repair kit, long-distance logistics for ammo, blueprint-creep-forward, etc). The only really 'novel' feature with artillery unlocked is the mobile artillery wagon, which is still restricted to areas where railway tracks can be safely built (most likely behind the defense perimeter).

[sarge945]

Isn't 'toggling' personal laser defense on and off manually just another form of micro? On top of the stutter-stepping movement to dodge projectiles from worms? Which would result in more 'micro-intensive' gameplay when both are present together in-game?

The difference is that toggling the laser defense is a relatively low-skill operation in terms of execution, literally only pressing 1 button and not needing the best timing. The emphasis is on using it strategically. Stutter-stepping is mainly a "can you out-skill these projectiles" check, which is fundamentally different.

I feel the Artillery Weapon only poses a small negligent risk to a proper late-game defense perimeter and doesn't add much novel automation beyond what players have been doing with their pre-Artillery defense wall (roboport + repair kit, long-distance logistics for ammo, blueprint-creep-forward, etc). The only really 'novel' feature with artillery unlocked is the mobile artillery wagon, which is still restricted to areas where railway tracks can be safely built (most likely behind the defense perimeter).

Fair point. I don't really use Artillery Wagons as I see them as mostly pointless because of the fact that they need to be protected in much the same way as regular artillery, and it's WAY easier to just reload an artillery cannon with robots rather than needing to build a railway network for it.

Additionally, there's no real automation we can use to keep them safe.

A while ago I requested a feature whereby we could hook a radar up to the circuit network to send a signal based on the number of hostile entities within a certain range.

This might make artillery wagons a bit more useful because you could build sprawling railways leaving your base, give artillery wagons a schedule to patrol the perimeter, and give them an interrupt to return to the confines of your walls once enemies start to get in range.

What would also be really cool would be a "gun wagon", which is basically a wagon that takes SMG ammo and fires on nearby enemies, similar to ~5 gun turrets worth of firepower.

This would open up a lot of interesting possibilities, like having an artillery wagon roaming the map which can defend itself from oncoming waves (at least to a minor degree), but additionally we could see meme-defense builds where people build a wall around a railway, rather than turrets, and send the gun trains to the locations where enemies are based on radars detecting them within range and activating certain stations.

Hmm, now that I think about it, Radar wagons would be pretty neat too!

[GregoriusT]

What would also be really cool would be a "gun wagon", which is basically a wagon that takes SMG ammo and fires on nearby enemies, similar to ~5 gun turrets worth of firepower.

This would open up a lot of interesting possibilities, like having an artillery wagon roaming the map which can defend itself from oncoming waves (at least to a minor degree), but additionally we could see meme-defense builds where people build a wall around a railway, rather than turrets, and send the gun trains to the locations where enemies are based on radars detecting them within range and activating certain stations.

I can tell you right away, a Gun Turret Waggon would only have 1 or 2 Turrets worth of Firepower (4 if they have limited firing angles), because Gun Turrets contrary to popular belief are quite powerful, especially when supplied with good Ammo (which for a train waggon you surely would splurge on good Ammo).

And that Turret Wagon might not even get the Turret Power Bonus because of it being mobile, though Rails make it less of a Car/Tank so they could still get such a Bonus.

Right now the only way to defend a Train is to have Spidertrons guard it, would be nice if there was better ways.

[XT-248]

Isn't 'toggling' personal laser defense on and off manually just another form of micro? On top of the stutter-stepping movement to dodge projectiles from worms? Which would result in more 'micro-intensive' gameplay when both are present together in-game?

The difference is that toggling the laser defense is a relatively low-skill operation in terms of execution, literally only pressing 1 button and not needing the best timing. The emphasis is on using it strategically. Stutter-stepping is mainly a "can you out-skill these projectiles" check, which is fundamentally different.

Right. One of the original problems that WUBE outlined in the blog is that we, Factorio engineers, can stack personal laser defense modules sky-high in equipment grids (plural - armors/spidertrons/etc).

What if I have two sets of armor (armor in inventory and wearing another armor) and swap them around as needed to let the overheated modules cool off in inventory? Then, we are back to the original problem of 'adding more micro-management' and 'inadvertently adding more skill checks.'

I feel the Artillery Weapon only poses a small negligent risk to a proper late-game defense perimeter and doesn't add much novel automation beyond what players have been doing with their pre-Artillery defense wall (roboport + repair kit, long-distance logistics for ammo, blueprint-creep-forward, etc). The only really 'novel' feature with artillery unlocked is the mobile artillery wagon, which is still restricted to areas where railway tracks can be safely built (most likely behind the defense perimeter).

Fair point. I don't really use Artillery Wagons as I see them as mostly pointless because of the fact that they need to be protected in much the same way as regular artillery, and it's WAY easier to just reload an artillery cannon with robots rather than needing to build a railway network for it.

Additionally, there's no real automation we can use to keep them safe.

A while ago I requested a feature whereby we could hook a radar up to the circuit network to send a signal based on the number of hostile entities within a certain range.

This might make artillery wagons a bit more useful because you could build sprawling railways leaving your base, give artillery wagons a schedule to patrol the perimeter, and give them an interrupt to return to the confines of your walls once enemies start to get in range.

What would also be really cool would be a "gun wagon", which is basically a wagon that takes SMG ammo and fires on nearby enemies, similar to ~5 gun turrets worth of firepower.

This would open up a lot of interesting possibilities, like having an artillery wagon roaming the map which can defend itself from oncoming waves (at least to a minor degree), but additionally we could see meme-defense builds where people build a wall around a railway, rather than turrets, and send the gun trains to the locations where enemies are based on radars detecting them within range and activating certain stations.

Hmm, now that I think about it, Radar wagons would be pretty neat too!

Cool idea about radar signaling that there are multiple incoming enemies and turning on the train station to have a train artillery convey show up where it is needed.

That would give some much-needed 'novel' automation for using artillery wagons.

[mmmPI]

Right. One of the original problems that WUBE outlined in the blog is that we, Factorio engineers, can stack personal laser defense modules sky-high in equipment grids (plural - armors/spidertrons/etc).

What if I have two sets of armor (armor in inventory and wearing another armor) and swap them around as needed to let the overheated modules cool off in inventory? Then, we are back to the original problem of 'adding more micro-management' and 'inadvertently adding more skill checks.'

[Moderated by Koub : Sarcasm, please, don't harrass people)

[mmmPI]

Right. One of the original problems that WUBE outlined in the blog is that we, Factorio engineers, can stack personal laser defense modules sky-high in equipment grids (plural - armors/spidertrons/etc).

What if I have two sets of armor (armor in inventory and wearing another armor) and swap them around as needed to let the overheated modules cool off in inventory? Then, we are back to the original problem of 'adding more micro-management' and 'inadvertently adding more skill checks.'

[Moderated by Koub : Sarcasm, please, don't harrass people)

[Moderated by Koub : Off topic]

[Tertius]

[Moderated by Koub : response to a now moderated content]

[mmmPI]

[Moderated by Koub : Off topic]

[sarge945]

I don't actually think we're disagreeing as much as you seem to think we are.

I completely disagree with implementing stutterstepping, but we're both on the same page about nerfing PLD.

I proposed what I believed to be a solution designed around resource management and strategising around overheating, as an alternative to the stutter-stepping suggestion which I thought was a bad idea because of the overt focus on mechanical skill execution, which doesn't sit right with me in a Factory game.

If you think my alternative idea is bad, whatever, I don't mind. But I don't see any reason why you'd need to go on the offensive. Nobody is "spilling out bullshit".

What I REALLY take offense to is being called "a troll" who "only posts on this specific FFF". Firstly, we don't all have time to post on the forums frequently. I responded to this FFF initially because it looked interesting, and keep getting lured back because I keep getting inbox notifications about it. That's not a sign of "trolling". I have posted on other threads. I have made and published mods for the game. Forging some fake identity to come here and troll would have to be pretty high effort on my part to weave such a complex web of lies.

I don't agree with the choice to moderate, I wasn't feeling harassed (at least, not before the moderation happened), but I think you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill here.

Anyway, I won't be posting about PLD combat anymore. It's very clear that we're not going to see eye to eye on this. I think PLD is overpowered and would like to see it made more interesting to use. I don't particularly like the solution you presented and you don't particularly like mine. So I guess the only option left is to leave it at that. At this point it's really up to the developers to decide which ideas they think are good or bad, and which have sound reasoning. I'm only trying to suggest what I feel would be good for the game overall.

Cool idea about radar signaling that there are multiple incoming enemies and turning on the train station to have a train artillery convey show up where it is needed.

That would give some much-needed 'novel' automation for using artillery wagons.

I guess the main reason it probably won't be implemented is likely for performance. Having every radar in the map constantly scanning it's surroundings for hostiles would be pretty inefficient. There are probably better ways to do it, though, although maybe they aren't worth the effort.

[mmmPI]

It´s unfortunate my post were moderated in à way that doesńt make it clear i was only calling troll the person who quote me on this thread while not answering the PM
Nothing against you sarge945

[mmmPI]

I don't particularly like the solution you presented and you don't particularly like mine

I didńt presented any solution , i dońt see any problems with what the devs announced

I think mentionning the ability to swap armor is quite offtopic after so much fuss on PLD & spidertron or PLD for people who cańt click fast, because it is there and had always been and HAS Nothing to do with the balances changes discussed. I think it´s a non argument but it´s not your.

À nerf of the PLD as announced by the devs IS the solution to give incentive to people to use alternative weapons , and suggestions to improve the PLD are missing the point imo

[XT-248]

I don't actually think we're disagreeing as much as you seem to think we are.

I completely disagree with implementing stutterstepping, but we're both on the same page about nerfing PLD.

It is not that I disagree with you on 'implementing' stutter stepping. Being able to dodge worm projectiles exists as part of different mechanics coming together to make it possible.

Worm/splitter aiming at a spot ahead of where the target may be. The worm/splitter throws a projectile that takes a few seconds to land. Spidertron, players, or any other mobile target can change their own direction at any point up to the last second before impact to dodge the projectile.

In order to 'de-implementing' stutter stepping, WUBE would have to modify various slow projectiles to be either 'missile-seeker' style projectiles, make the projectile move so fast that there is a little to no delay before impacting, or turn them into 'instant-hit' style projectile (laser as an example).

I proposed what I believed to be a solution designed around resource management and strategising around overheating, as an alternative to the stutter-stepping suggestion which I thought was a bad idea because of the overt focus on mechanical skill execution, which doesn't sit right with me in a Factory game.

If you think my alternative idea is bad, whatever, I don't mind. *snipped*

I was explaining how I would break the mechanics in a manner that other players could consider exploitable mechanics. That does not mean I dislike the idea.

A while ago, I suggested modifying other stats on the personal laser defense module itself. One of them was increasing the energy demand in a way that people need to think about trade-offs between adding more PLDS or adding other non-PLD modules.

Example: Players can go with a PLD 'glass-cannon' loadout, a more balanced loadout, or a 'zero-PLDs' tanky loadout. Otherwise, they go over the energy budget that they have available.

Anyway, I won't be posting about PLD combat anymore. It's very clear that we're not going to see eye to eye on this. I think PLD is overpowered and would like to see it made more interesting to use. I don't particularly like the solution you presented and you don't particularly like mine. So I guess the only option left is to leave it at that. At this point it's really up to the developers to decide which ideas they think are good or bad, and which have sound reasoning. I'm only trying to suggest what I feel would be good for the game overall.

I agree that PLD could use some nerf because of quality mechanics.

The 66% reduction in damage is too much. I would instead have combined stat changes including but not limited to the following: a lower XX% reduction in damage, a modest decrease in the PLD's laser-shooting speed, and an increased PLD's energy needed to fire.


I am curious as to what you dislike about this particular solution. I am just trying to understand your position on my proposed changes.

[mmmPI]

First of all i think the idea of not nerfing the PLD because some player project wrongly that other slow player use it instead of artillery to fight biters when they can't click fast is show of misunderstanding of the game.

I think proposing to add priority target on the PLD doesn't adress in the slightiest the fact that the PLD is lazy and easy to use which makes some players fallback on to it and even proudly claiming to use them exclusively instead of artillery for the task that artillery and PLD were designed for.

I feel there is misunderstanding because the PLD isn't underused and requiring a buff. In case it wasn't clear a 66% damage reduction is a nerf, to make it less the go to solution of lazy players who then complain they have a lot of micro management to do, because instead they should use artillery.

It seem to make total sense that a nerf on the PLD damage would give incentives to players who proudly claim using exclusively PLD to try some other weapons. Like the new weapons that were introduced in the game, like the Tesla gun.

I don't understand why people would want to complain about the PLD reduction damage while at the same time refusing to have the mind open enough to consider the other weapons available. And claiming they like using the PLD and micro clicking a lot to kill biters, if they think it's fun, they should probably understand that their fun is extended by a lot.

It seem to me someone is willingly refusing to see the solution because one like claiming there is a problem. The PLD was nerfed to make room for other ammo. It makes no sense to me to refuse to consider the other weapons when willing to speak about balance.

I think many of the propositions are coming from the very same players that should understand the incentive to stop using only PLD reading the changing narratives of how they playstyle is described.

I also think it's aleady possible to dodge projectile, and proposing to change this makes no sense.

[shopt]

I know I'm late here, but I want to add my support to nerfing the PLD (though a 66% nerf does seem massive, will have to see how it plays out) and buffing combat bots. Between the 2 the combat bots are the more interesting and more "factorio" combat tool, due to it actually requiring ongoing production (in a factory game, oh no the horror). IMO you should need either brute force production/logistics and/or skill and/or extreme endgame tech to succeed at combat in vanilla Factorio, and PLD requires none of these.

I'm pleased to see the devs are still willing to nerf things despite the inevitable crowd that shows up when anything is nerfed.

I'm still not sure about the spawner HP buff. I found combat interesting when I could run in, burst damage the squishy spawner and run out while trying not to die to worms and biters. I definitely don't want every nest attack collapsed down to a drawn out battle where you need to kill all the biters, and then all the worms, so that then you can survive long enough to deal enough damage to the spawners. Will need to wait and see how this interacts with the combat bot buff and any new weapons we get.

[GregoriusT]

The Combat Bots would be an even greater option if you could remote deploy them independent from Player position, now that we got multiple Planets to worry about.

[sarge945]

I agree being able to control combat bots (maybe with the new RTS tool?) would be very cool.

What really matters isn't how lazy PLD is, it's how it compares to the other options. Every form of combat should be viable in different situations/contexts and playstyles, and PLD just seems like objectively the best choice for close combat with few downsides, which is why it should be hit with the nerf bat.

Slightly unrelated, but still in the vein of combat balancing, and this is likely a very controversial opinion, I would argue that "turret creeping" should probably be addressed as well. In the early/mid game it's a very effective technique for taking out biter nests, which is very easy to do, and is significantly more powerful than the other options available at the time. I don't think being able to actually take out nests (except for really small ones) in the early game was really intended, as the Tank really seems like the designated nest-killer (and the car, to a lesser degree), and with enough turrets you're pretty much invulnerable at a part of the game where you should be weak and feel like going on the offensive is a risky proposition. I would address this by giving turrets (and all combat buildings) a 5 second "deploy time" where they can't operate after being built and take additional damage when attacked. But maybe I am concerned about a "problem" that nobody else cares about. Turret creeping has just always felt super cheesy to me, in the same way running around killing everything with PLD does.

[GregoriusT]

Slightly unrelated, but still in the vein of combat balancing, and this is likely a very controversial opinion, I would argue that "turret creeping" should probably be addressed as well. In the early/mid game it's a very effective technique for taking out biter nests, which is very easy to do, and is significantly more powerful than the other options available at the time. I don't think being able to actually take out nests (except for really small ones) in the early game was really intended, as the Tank really seems like the designated nest-killer (and the car, to a lesser degree), and with enough turrets you're pretty much invulnerable at a part of the game where you should be weak and feel like going on the offensive is a risky proposition. I would address this by giving turrets (and all combat buildings) a 5 second "deploy time" where they can't operate after being built and take additional damage when attacked. But maybe I am concerned about a "problem" that nobody else cares about. Turret creeping has just always felt super cheesy to me, in the same way running around killing everything with PLD does.

Turret Creeping is a lot harder than you think, you need to be fast enough with actually putting Ammo into the Gun Turrets before the Biters get too close, which is something you either need to be very skilled at (i sure as heck cant pull it off reliably), or you need to have Mods that automatically fill Gun Turrets, or you just use the Picket Dolly and push already loaded Turrets into the Biter Nests.

Also earlygame Nests have been made MUCH more fragile in this Combat Balance Patch, while Shotguns got buffed quite a bit. You can now actually run up to Nests earlygame and shotgun em to death even more easily than before.

The only thing I am quite annoyed about is that Gun Turrets have a dedicated Attack Power Bonus compared to the SMG or the Car/Tank Machine Gun. They should have the same Power, with the Gun Turrets instead just shooting twice as many Bullets or so to keep the same DPS. Instead it is some weird mix of multiple different additive percentage damage bonuses that is hard to look at and calculate for.

[mmmPI]

and PLD just seems like objectively the best choice for close combat with few downsides, which is why it should be hit with the nerf bat.

I disagree ! it's the easiest to use, the laziest, but using capsules robots allow to reach much higher DPS while retaining the whole armor grid available for shield , or roboport for turret creep, thus making it the better option imo.

Also a -66% reduction in damage is not that much when you think of legendary quality being 2.5 better than the original. You still get more than 80% of the original damage. That is not even counting the fact that you can have quality armor, which to me WILL benefit the PLD compared to handheld weapons, ( same for spidertron of legendary quality) if you can have 20 -25% more of them, it already makes the PLD "stronger" than in non-space age game. D