Friday Facts #427 - Combat Balancing & Space Age LAN

[mmmPI]

The reason PLD is used inspite of this is because Players often do not like the Stress of Speedrunning the Game, and prefer just building their Factory.

It is way more common for the Factory Building focussed Players to do PLD, because it is a low effort "gotta get the job done" type of weapon with lots of accessibility for people that cannot fight well.

I think the artillery should be the prefered options for those players as the PLD focus on close-mid range combat versus ennemies whoses projectiles need to be dodge. It may give them an incentive to try (and like) something that they wouldn't have otherwise. I tend to think similarly as "lazy" PLD which would be required to be legendary to be as effective.

[numzero]

ALSO, a QoL feature request: Please allow the "Toggle Personal Roboport" button to have 3 states, Off, On and Smart

Off and On are the same as now, whereas Smart will automatically disable the personal roboport if there are biters within a small distance, and re-enable it the rest of the time. This will prevent construction bots trying to repair the players vehicle and getting destroyed constantly.

Makes sense. I use Ctrl+E myself but, that means I have to remember to switch it (and often I don’t).

drive around in a tank, circle strafe the colony, and you can kill everything with impunity. The tank is basically unkillable as long as enemies are chasing it because it can outrun most enemies in the game.

Up until you run into a tiny rock that will stop the tank for just long enough for biters to circle it.

The biters need a more direct way to stop the tank in it's tracks, so that they can damage it. Like enemies that can "blink" in front of the tank and attack it in it's path

Not with the current collision mechanic please. As long as any biter can stop the tank by just standing in front of it such enemies would just make the tank useless.

Really, the tank should be able to push biters away, not only to kill and drive over them. That would still slow it down but not to a complete halt so, e.g. escaping a crowd of biters could be possible.

[GregoriusT]

There is already more than enough ways that Biters can stop Tanks attacking their Nests, the most effective ones being Cliffs and Water. And now with Nests having higher Health on later Evo Levels, they can also use the Nests themselves to prevent being overrun by a Tank.

I still would have preferred Small/Medium/Big/Behemoth Spawners, as those could scale with Map generation on distance, which might have made it less necessary to spam a crapton of Nests. That and those different Spawners could generate the bigger Biters right away at zero Evo, with the Evo Factor only influencing Biter Expansions.

Waaaaaait, I just noticed, there is a Destroy Spawners Factor for Evolution, does that scale with the Health of the destroyed Spawner in any way? (I assume it does not, but it is something to consider)

[XT-248]

I think the artillery should be the prefered options for those players as the PLD focus on close-mid range combat versus ennemies whoses projectiles need to be dodge. It may give them an incentive to try (and like) something that they wouldn't have otherwise. I tend to think similarly as "lazy" PLD which would be required to be legendary to be as effective.

Hard disagree.

Spamming artillery, any version: train or turret, and using the base perimeter to clear out large swaths of areas for expansion can also be considered 'lazy' in the same manner as spamming PLDs, regardless of whether something is Q5. It is possible to have artillery engage enemies in auto-firing mode and move them closer to the frontline (train variant) without taking an active role in executing the expansion plan.



At least with a brawler-spidertron-loadout/PLDs, I am taking an active role in clearing out expansions for factory growth and having fun.

[Tertius]

Spamming artillery, any version: train or turret, and using the base perimeter to clear out large swaths of areas for expansion can also be considered 'lazy' in the same manner as spamming PLDs, regardless of whether something is Q5.

Factorio is about automation, and automation is the essence of laziness: don't do it yourself but let it do for you instead. That's lazy, and that's what automation is for. Automate it, so you can forget about it and have time for the interesting things. You can say an auto-operating weapon is lazy, but there's no reason to complain about that.

By the way, there are games who celebrate non-automation and make it a game mechanic: mostly online games, and it's called grind. It's for keeping people in the game with the most boring task that's also extremely cheap in development cost. My approach against this grind was writing a bot to automate it. Writing the bot and not being caught was actually entertaining and thrilling and gave me a deep satisfaction against this stupid kind of task.

[XT-248]

Spamming artillery, any version: train or turret, and using the base perimeter to clear out large swaths of areas for expansion can also be considered 'lazy' in the same manner as spamming PLDs, regardless of whether something is Q5.

Factorio is about automation, and automation is the essence of laziness: don't do it yourself but let it do for you instead. That's lazy, and that's what automation is for. Automate it, so you can forget about it and have time for the interesting things. You can say an auto-operating weapon is lazy, but there's no reason to complain about that.

By the way, there are games who celebrate non-automation and make it a game mechanic: mostly online games, and it's called grind. It's for keeping people in the game with the most boring task that's also extremely cheap in development cost. My approach against this grind was writing a bot to automate it. Writing the bot and not being caught was actually entertaining and thrilling and gave me a deep satisfaction against this stupid kind of task.

Right, except the other guy is describing 'artillery' weapons and 'spidertron/PLD-stacking' as being equivalent to 'writing a bot' to farm/grind for whoever does it.


One is possible to automate fully, and players usually take a non-active role (spam artillery remote doesn't count). They derive no enjoyment in clearing large areas of the local fauna because they didn't participate meaningfully.

The other case requires some minimum degree of 'participation' in order to skillfully dodge enemy projectiles, and players can derive some enjoyment in pulling off a 'skill-shot without using an aimbot/bot' to use an FPS phrase/term.

[mmmPI]

Hard disagree.

I think your arguments make no sense, i just say artillery is more passive than PLD, you say the same.

Also you don't need to use the remote for artillery, its auto-targeting is enough.

[Tertius]

The other case requires some minimum degree of 'participation' in order to skillfully dodge enemy projectiles, and players can derive some enjoyment in pulling off a 'skill-shot without using an aimbot/bot' to use an FPS phrase/term.

I simply don't see Factorio as action combat game that requires skill to shoot. It doesn't match the factory building aspect. I see the combat as part of the same kind of skill challenge as factory building. I compare the combat in Factorio with the combat in Vampire Survivors, a "roguelike shoot'em-up" game. In that game, you're tasked to survive in a 30 minute level and just shoot every enemy down that shows up. Enemies increase over time. At the end of the level, you might shot over 100000 enemies. While shooting them down, you get new weapons and weapon upgrades. You don't win the level by being a skilled shooter. You don't even have a trigger, all weapons are automatic. Instead, you win by choosing the right powerups before the start of the level and by choosing the right weapons and upgrades when you're offered them mid-level. You need brain, not brawl.

[XT-248]

Hard disagree.

I think your arguments make no sense, i just say artillery is more passive than PLD, you say the same.

Also you don't need to use the remote for artillery, its auto-targeting is enough.

Auto-targeting artillery has a range limit on how far it will engage. The artillery remote control exceeds the auto-targeting range. Even then, as a whole, the artillery weapon system does not reward participation in combat through the use of the remote control.

PLD and Spidertron reward participation as they cannot be blindly used (equivalent to ctrl+A or 'attack-move' and walking away) and dodge hostile projectiles, but they can do so with player direct manual control. Artillery weapons do not have a benefit from manual control.

The other case requires some minimum degree of 'participation' in order to skillfully dodge enemy projectiles, and players can derive some enjoyment in pulling off a 'skill-shot without using an aimbot/bot' to use an FPS phrase/term.

I simply don't see Factorio as action combat game that requires skill to shoot. It doesn't match the factory building aspect. I see the combat as part of the same kind of skill challenge as factory building. I compare the combat in Factorio with the combat in Vampire Survivors, a "roguelike shoot'em-up" game. In that game, you're tasked to survive in a 30 minute level and just shoot every enemy down that shows up. Enemies increase over time. At the end of the level, you might shot over 100000 enemies. While shooting them down, you get new weapons and weapon upgrades. You don't win the level by being a skilled shooter. You don't even have a trigger, all weapons are automatic. Instead, you win by choosing the right powerups before the start of the level and by choosing the right weapons and upgrades when you're offered them mid-level. You need brain, not brawl.

I am not talking about turning Factorio into an action combat game. Those kinds of video games are usually FPS-view and don't match or align with what I think.


I am thinking more of an RTS game like Starcraft II.

I am talking about taking what I know about the game mechanics (trying to predict where a target will be a few seconds and fire at that spot, but the target changes direction before the projectile lands) and fully utilizing the spidertron and PLD together in order to clear local fauna using micro-tactical movement orders in a rapid sequential fashion to dodge worm and spitter projectiles.

Consequently, I treat spidertron as a marine (or any other RTS game balanced unit) that does a "stutter-step" movement (or any other tricks) from Starcraft II (or any other RTS game). By doing a "stutter-step" maneuver, I make all of the marines shoot a bit, then move all of the marines a tiny bit forward, and alternative between the two actions until all marines are within attacking range to maximize damage yield and make it possible to overtake larger enemy than would have been possible otherwise by taking a 'lazy/non-active/attack-move-and-walk-away' approach to combat.

Here, the player doesn't pick who the marines target and kills first while doing a "stutter-step" maneuver.


It is possible to have both RTS micro-control combat and utilizing large-scale automation in a video game, as they are not mutually exclusive.

Directly to the point, how would a player play with a vanilla Factorio unmodified 1.1.x version automate the deployment of spidertron? Fill out the loadout without manual intervention? Automate 'dancing' movement to dodge the fauna projectiles to mitigate incoming damage and avoid dying so quickly?

[Khagan]

players can derive some enjoyment in pulling off a 'skill-shot without using an aimbot/bot' to use an FPS phrase/term.

Yes, they can. But Factorio is an automation game, and this sort of action game skill should not be required of players. At standard settings, if you invest sensibly in military tech and produce and supply reasonable levels of munitions, combat, even offensively, should be straightforward and risk-free.

[XT-248]

players can derive some enjoyment in pulling off a 'skill-shot without using an aimbot/bot' to use an FPS phrase/term.

Yes, they can. But Factorio is an automation game, and this sort of action game skill should not be required of players. At standard settings, if you invest sensibly in military tech and produce and supply reasonable levels of munitions, combat, even offensively, should be straightforward and risk-free.

I am describing the feeling of being able to 'pull off a skill-shot.' See my Starcraft II marine 'stutter-step' example above.

The hint is in the phrasing can derive some enjoyment and the two " ' " around the FPS phrase/term itself, which I highlight in your quoted statement.



Also, what I posted earlier in the conversation, before your post, hasn't changed.

I am not talking about turning Factorio into an action combat game. Those kinds of video games are usually FPS-view and don't match or align with what I think.

[mmmPI]

Auto-targeting artillery has a range limit on how far it will engage. The artillery remote control exceeds the auto-targeting range. Even then, as a whole, the artillery weapon system does not reward participation in combat through the use of the remote control.

Exactly why it's the more passive style and contradicting your previous sentence :

I know people who are in real-life mobility challenged who rely on PLD as 'back-up,' while their spidertron build main damage dealers are explosive rockets, as they are incapable of moving their mouse in a way to target and kill hostiles in the same way I can with PLD-only spidertron squadron (dancing to dodge worm/spitter range glob to get in close and kill them).

PLD and Spidertron reward participation as they cannot be blindly used (equivalent to ctrl+A or 'attack-move' and walking away) and dodge hostile projectiles, but they can do so with player direct manual control. Artillery weapons do not have a benefit from manual control.

You are wrong artillery can be fully automated, so you don't need to dodge anything and can play 100 passively, you therefore should use it if you are incapable of dodging projectile. And none of the argument i heard AGAINST the nerf from you makes any sense i found.

It is still unclear why you said "hard disagree" when i just stated the obvious, that artillery can be used without clicking fast because it's 100% automated, whereas PLD is for manual combat.

[XT-248]

Auto-targeting artillery has a range limit on how far it will engage. The artillery remote control exceeds the auto-targeting range. Even then, as a whole, the artillery weapon system does not reward participation in combat through the use of the remote control.

Exactly why it's the more passive style and contradicting your previous sentence :

I know people who are in real-life mobility challenged who rely on PLD as 'back-up,' while their spidertron build main damage dealers are explosive rockets, as they are incapable of moving their mouse in a way to target and kill hostiles in the same way I can with PLD-only spidertron squadron (dancing to dodge worm/spitter range glob to get in close and kill them).

That post you quoted is part of a larger conversation about someone who thought that I don't know how other people play Factorio (spidertron without PLDs or turret creeping or w/e).

*Anyone who was relying on PLDs to wipe everything moving around. You may be surprised but, not everyone does that. The loadout I shown is cool but, I made it well after the rocket (and I’d never risk using that outside a spidertron) and more for fun than anything.

As such some extra reading would do everybody a world of good before quoting something out of context.

That sentence does NOT resemble how I normally play Factorio because I don't have in-real-life mobility issues, and consequently, I can pull off a 'micro-manage' of spidertron without rockets.

PLD and Spidertron reward participation as they cannot be blindly used (equivalent to ctrl+A or 'attack-move' and walking away) and dodge hostile projectiles, but they can do so with player direct manual control. Artillery weapons do not have a benefit from manual control.

You are wrong artillery can be fully automated, so you don't need to dodge anything and can play 100 passively, you therefore should use it if you are incapable of dodging projectile. And none of the argument i heard AGAINST the nerf from you makes any sense i found.

It is still unclear why you said "hard disagree" when i just stated the obvious, that artillery can be used without clicking fast because it's 100% automated, whereas PLD is for manual combat.

I apparently failed to communicate this clearly enough.


Just because someone can 'micro-manage' the artillery remote control to hit beyond the auto-targeting range does not mean there is any extra benefit in doing so. It also doesn't mean that the artillery turrets and wagons cannot be automated within the auto-targeting range.

Put in simple terms, I did not say that the artillery weapons couldn't be automated at all, being restricted by auto-targeting range.


With spidertron, it is certainly not possible to be 'fully automated*' like artillery weapons can be. As such, player 'micro-managing' will confer extra benefit by having higher survivability in dodging incoming projectiles' damage and making shield HP last longer.


*'fully automated': Without modifications in vanilla 1.1.x Factorio.

[mmmPI]

I know people who are in real-life mobility challenged who rely on PLD as 'back-up,' while their spidertron build main damage dealers are explosive rockets, as they are incapable of moving their mouse in a way to target and kill hostiles in the same way I can with PLD-only spidertron squadron (dancing to dodge worm/spitter range glob to get in close and kill them).

As such some extra reading would do everybody a world of good before quoting something out of context.

It seemed to me that you said people with difficulty to click fast would use PLD that seem completly backward, as the PLD is close range mid combat and require some dodging

Instead they should use artillery, this is more passive playstyle.

That sentence does NOT resemble how I normally play Factorio because I don't have in-real-life mobility issues, and consequently, I can pull off a 'micro-manage' of spidertron without rockets.


I apparently failed to communicate this clearly enough.

Yeah that is a big failure of communication hahahaah, it make you sound ridiculous, like you complain PLD is nerf for people that can't click fast, when those person shouldn't use this fighting method in the first place and you are not using it either.

And you said "hard disagree" when i said artillery is more passive than PLD x)

[mmmPI]

I think the artillery should be the prefered options for those players as the PLD focus on close-mid range combat versus ennemies whoses projectiles need to be dodge. It may give them an incentive to try (and like) something that they wouldn't have otherwise. I tend to think similarly as "lazy" PLD which would be required to be legendary to be as effective.

Hard disagree.

Spamming artillery, any version: train or turret, and using the base perimeter to clear out large swaths of areas for expansion can also be considered 'lazy' in the same manner as spamming PLDs, regardless of whether something is Q5. It is possible to have artillery engage enemies in auto-firing mode and move them closer to the frontline (train variant) without taking an active role in executing the expansion plan.



At least with a brawler-spidertron-loadout/PLDs, I am taking an active role in clearing out expansions for factory growth and having fun.

This is hilarious x) I just mention how artillery is the passive playstyle that should be prefered when not clicking fast, and you say "hard disagree" while saying the exact same thing .

Yeah PLD you need to dodge things, indeed you are active in clearing expansion, you need to click and move fast, unlike artillery. Why would you say you disagree and then say the same thing ? is it again a failure to communicate ?


It also makes no sense to propose not nerfing the PLD to have alternatives, given what you said, that you "lazily" use PLD because it's lazy, and you like to micro manage dodging. It is obvisouly a case where nerfing it would make the other alternatives more viable in comparaison.

[KuuLightwing]

Regarding artillery specifically for expanding your territory, I'd argue it's not automatic enough. It requires manually building and moving artillery outposts, clicking with the remote (or, if you don't do that - even more outpost building). It's more "lazy" in the sense that you don't need to put your character on the frontline, but it's still a very "hands on" procedure that ends up taking significant amount of time to do.

[Tertius]

I'm doing exactly this to expand the territory: build a self made artillery outpost blueprint, wait until the artillery shot down everything in range, then move the outpost. It's some balance between automation, convenience and custom (not automated) task. Something it's even thrilling, if the train wants to leave and is colliding with the last incoming biter wave.
It's strangely satisfying do do, like bringing out the trash or vacuum cleaning your living room: it's some kind of tedious task to do, but you have a nice clean apartment after you're finished.

[mmmPI]

Regarding artillery specifically for expanding your territory, I'd argue it's not automatic enough. It requires manually building and moving artillery outposts, clicking with the remote (or, if you don't do that - even more outpost building)

No you are wrong, you just have to do the research for artillery range. 100% automatic, no need to move anything or use the remote.

[XT-248]

Regarding artillery specifically for expanding your territory, I'd argue it's not automatic enough. It requires manually building and moving artillery outposts, clicking with the remote (or, if you don't do that - even more outpost building). It's more "lazy" in the sense that you don't need to put your character on the frontline, but it's still a very "hands on" procedure that ends up taking significant amount of time to do.

Placing a large wall blueprint with artillery turrets is sufficient 'hand-off' in my opinion and does not contribute much to the sense of 'fun' different people might have from doing a much more 'hands-on' approach.

Also, artillery wagons exist in the game and can be moved to a forward defensive outpost with train tracks, which reduces the necessary 'construction tasks' by fewer entities within the blueprint itself, which is at most a few clicks on a macro-management level.

Moving the artillery wagons can be automated through train schedules if one is sufficiently motivated to be more 'hand-off.'

I'm doing exactly this to expand the territory: build a self made artillery outpost blueprint, wait until the artillery shot down everything in range, then move the outpost. It's some balance between automation, convenience and custom (not automated) task. Something it's even thrilling, if the train wants to leave and is colliding with the last incoming biter wave.
It's strangely satisfying do do, like bringing out the trash or vacuum cleaning your living room: it's some kind of tedious task to do, but you have a nice clean apartment after you're finished.

That is your preferred way of playing, and I respect it.

I don't derive any enjoyment or fun from playing in the same way you do.


When I want to take a break from the factory building/planning/etc, and still play Factorio, I bring out the spidertron squadrons to have fun while cleaning out nests and worms.

Everybody is different.

[XT-248]

It seemed to me that you said people with difficulty to click fast would use PLD that seem completly backward, as the PLD is close range mid combat and require some dodging

Instead they should use artillery, this is more passive playstyle.

*snipped*

Yeah that is a big failure of communication hahahaah, it make you sound ridiculous, like you complain PLD is nerf for people that can't click fast, when those person shouldn't use this fighting method in the first place and you are not using it either.

And you said "hard disagree" when i said artillery is more passive than PLD x)

I did not say that players with in-real-life mobility challenges should use a much more 'micro-manage' approach to Factorio.


The change to PLD is uneqovatically a nerf, regardless of the gameplay styles.

I did not ever say it wasn't a nerf or a reduction in PLD's damage.


I am using PLD and Spidertron as my preferred method. I acknowledge that others use different weapons according to their preference for gameplay style.

That doesn't make my own preferred gameplay any less valid than other game play styles.

*snipped*

This is hilarious x) I just mention how artillery is the passive playstyle that should be prefered when not clicking fast, and you say "hard disagree" while saying the exact same thing .

Yeah PLD you need to dodge things, indeed you are active in clearing expansion, you need to click and move fast, unlike artillery. Why would you say you disagree and then say the same thing ? is it again a failure to communicate ?


It also makes no sense to propose not nerfing the PLD to have alternatives, given what you said, that you "lazily" use PLD because it's lazy, and you like to micro manage dodging. It is obvisouly a case where nerfing it would make the other alternatives more viable in comparaison.

No, someone misunderstood when they read my earlier statement highlighting gameplay styles I don't participate in but know of.

For unknown reasons, someone decided I was playing that way which is not an error that I made.


I disagree that PLD is 'lazy' in the same sense that automated artillery turrets/wagons are 'lazy' gameplay style.

For example, PLD and Spidertron are much more 'active' gameplay and do not have a shape or form that resembles or is 'lazy' gameplay due to the active role of the player in dodging incoming enemy projectiles. Building and automated artillery turrets/wagons is in every way a 'lazy' gameplay. One-click of a blueprinted defensive outpost + artillery turrets or train station for artillery wagon and a bit of waiting for construction, and that is it.


One requires constant 'micro-management', and the other doesn't. One is far more appropriately fit for 'lazy' or macro-management players than the other.