Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Here you go, another one.
https://youtu.be/s9DrzkIY5OQ
I can give you a few just from this channel, and these aren't the only ones, I can give you some links for portuguese speaking youtubers as well if you'd like, there is no shortage of these videos and people, I'm just trying to find the people and language you'd probably be most familiar with.
And if you somehow end up trying to shift goalposts enough so that any walls count as a "killbox", or, like in your chart, a single psycast skill is going to be called a killbox, I'll link my own videos as well, so don't worry, this is just the beginning.
So yes, he was wrong.
No semantics will change what an exploit is.
I agree, and I generally avoid those mechanics. I don't use mazes with chunks/fences/traps to slow or weaken raiders, I don't use dummy turrets (or any turrets most games). I do generally have a very clear box-like defensive position that normal enemies will always path into with colonists waiting in cover to open fire as soon as they do. It's very obviously a killbox, nobody is going to argue it's not, but it doesn't "abuse" any of the mechanics some people find "cheesy" because you don't have to. You generally need a defensive position to kill raids at, this should just be common sense, and a box shape works well at preventing enemy snipers from outranging you, which should seem obvious, none of that is remotely exploitative. If you remove the backwall of that box, that doesn't fundamentally change the concept, you just need more range on your weapons or accept that you wont have a good way to deal with snipers but the raid will still flee when the closer enemies drop. What do you call a design that is functionally a killbox but is open, it's a pillbox, or any defensive position.
My point is, there's a very clear difference between cheesy tactics and the normal defenses most players use and will call a killbox. The cheesiest tactics tend to come into play when somebody is claiming they aren't using a killbox and playing on a higher difficulty, things like door spam, or going very heavy on the use of certain psycasts.
Hiding behind doors to stop AI's from pathing to you and abusing the fact they forget your colonist went behind the door after a couple seconds or when attacked by a different colonist is not "micro." If anything in the game would be considered abusing the AI, door spam to deal with raids would be it. To claim otherwise would be hilariously hypocritical.
But yes, if there's a way to abuse their pathfinding with doors then yeah that would be an exploit, just one I don't know about.
That is where I draw the line at cheese, while other strategies I might just not find fun or enjoyable, everyone else is going to have a different line. IMO stacking turrets isn't cheesy, placing traps in a location you know enemies will walk over isn't cheesy, manipulating your base to make enemies walk over traps isn't cheesy, these are just natural and logical uses of those defensive tools. I'm not a fan of those tools in general so I don't use them, but using those tools in the most obvious ways imaginable can't possibly be considered cheesy. Using things like fences or pillars in awkward places does start to feel cheesy, but in reality is only making things marginally more effective. Placing fences next to traps to ensure enemies walk over the trap while your colonists walk over the fence is entirely unnecessary for example, it seems cheesy, but if you remove the fences it still works, enemies still walk over the traps because that is what they are supposed to do, just a few might not trigger depending on the placement and size of the raid.
A killbox is any prepared position that limits the movement of the enemy to maximize killing efficiency of intending to do unhealthy stuffs to them.
In Rimworld, it's "generally" referred to prepared defenses designed to influence the pathing/goal-seeking behavior of Raids to do the same. Killboxes can be relatively foolproof except for the inclusion of specific types of raids/raiders meant to prevent them from being efficient.
In brief, Rimworld defenses: (To OT @ the OP)
Static defenses can be powerful, but the "intent" is that colonists play a critical role in active defense. The design intent of the game has always been to not allow the player to create an "Idle Game" and that carries through all the gameplay mechanics. IMO, all efforts to defeat "killbox play" are targeted at fulfilling the "No Idle Game Imperative" of Rimworld design.
There must be a squad of Colonists on ready-five status, ready and capable to rapidly respond to any threat. They must be armed with better weapons than the enemy, better armored, and more skilled... The most important resources for the player in Rimworld are their colonists. It's not turrets or weapons, armor, rice, sculptures... Any mechanic that takes that focus away will be nerfed or subverted - One can count on that.
On defensive building strategies: The strongest defensive construction in Rimworld is a layered approach, with at least one outlying curtain wall and an interior main wall (both 2 to 3 blocks thick), with the space between occupied by a "No Man's Land" of automated/static defenses (Turrets/IEDs/traps) and with one main "kill box" designed to handle the bulk of Raids with standard pathing/goal behavior. Interior, fortified, fall-back positions with overlapping fields of fire (bunkers) and two or more, never just one, mortars round out a standard "best defense." (A scattering of interior turrets, should the player be so inclined, on a switch(s) can be helpful. When limited, interior turrets should be placed between a likely breach/access point and the center of the colony and connected to switches and fed by a backup battery bank capable of powering them. It is also possible to be ready with the mats and battery necessary to build hasty-turret defenses.)
Construction one's base with defense in mind is always important if one wishes to min/max. (It is not "necessary" though if one just wants to have..fun.) Therefore: Why is there not a trap on the closest tile to a corner that screens a path to a likely doorway or bunker? Because the player didn't think the Raider that is rushing to catch a fleeing pawn would ever get that far. Why is that fleeing pawn not running faster because they've got a paved retreat route? Because the player didn't think they'd need it. Why is that route of retreat not also screened by walls or at least out-buildings? Because... player no thinkee. Why is that door not screened by at least a three-block wall to prevent pawns from being shot in the back as they cross through the doorway? Right - The player no do think stuff. And, why isn't that three-block wall in front of the door to limit attackers being able to focus fire through that doorway and to provide a better ratio of defenders able to bring weapons to bear on the same doorway attackers are breaching? 'Cause... you know... bears.
Building with defense in mind helps offer better resistance to non-standard raid types, too. If one has interior defensive positions, bolt-hole escape routes offering cover, spots where ambushes can be used and the traps to support them, etc. Don't built long hallways, for instance... Use "L-Shaped" hallway spots as defensive positions, opening to a room where you can bring more fire against the enemy than they can against you, etc..
Note: A base that isn't built exactly like the above, but tries to do its best to emulate that design principle, is going to be better than any of those that do not. Mountain Bases are their own animal and it's difficult to give generic advice other than "protect the front-door" and "light is good." Or, just turn off Bugs...
("Star Forts" look cool, but they take up more area than they're worth.... Because they don't really restrict enemy movement, they're no better than just a square filled with turrets that can pot-shot the enemy as they move around them to the kill-box.)
A good bit of learning to play Rimworld well in any capacity is first failing... and learning from one's mistakes or tragedies. The example I always use is Advanced Components. Nothing in the game tells the player how critical they are to obtain until the player realizes they should have bought those Advanced Components they saw the trader trying to sell to them an hour ago... Rimworld rewards players paying attention and applying their lessons-learned to their next gameplay session. Every new Rimworlder should hold their own mini-AAR to review what occurred in their last playthrough, what was effective and what was not, and how to apply those lessons in future sessions. It's better practice than keeping a Wiki-page open...
My issue is that nobody talks about these simple things when they talk about a killbox, they are specifically talking about a set of exploits they place along with these defenses.
The simples, clearest example always being the pathfinding, people will make a single entrance to their base, put a ton of defenses there, and then defend from that direction, if they are inside a mountain base that's fine, the base actually doesn't have any other entrances, and it makes perfect sense to do so, but most bases don't use natural terrain for that, they intentionally need to keep the base open with a clear path towards actual furtniture objects, or a living pawn/animal specifically to lure raiders to their death, so the AI will glitch and refuse to hit the walls from every other direction and instead commit suicide from that one direction, every time, there's no way to not call that an exploit, yet nearly every single killboxy design uses that, I usually don't see "killbox" designs with actual closed doors and no pathways inside the base that just happens to have very good cover for combat through every valid direction.
There is no way a person who intentionally leaves that one entrance open doesn't know it's glitching the AI's pathfinding, and that the entire setup just wouldn't work if every door was closed instead, and that's just the most basic level of exploit, it keeps getting more and more ridiculous from there, up or even past the example posted above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH9oyC9KZlE
In fact, the reluctance to call exploits for what they are, exploits, in the RW community creates the "confusion" where people can use the same word, killbox, to talk about beckon, to talk about planting chocolate, to talk about building some sandbags along a river, or to create a massive collection of exploits to make the AI kill itself without any chance of fighting back, if we were to simply call those exploits, there wouldn't be such an issue and we could pretend even defenses without actual boxes are, somehow, "killboxes" as they'd go by different names.
Useful categories are not inclusive, at all, in fact, they must be extremely exclusive, so we can tell exactly what people are talking about without any clarification.
We all know what the OP meant when he started this thread, he just wanted a collection of screenshots of bases to see if he could get inspiration to create a functional one of his own, without any exploits, trading shots, being able to move efficiently and making it believable, but instead we get stuck in a discussion about semantics on whether or not a dog out in the open is a killbox, or a skill, or a cocoa plantantion, or a 3x3 sandbag square, how is that helpful to the OP or anyone else?
Any sufficiently inclusive category becomes useless, if you use the word "killbox" to refer to anything, then you can just say anything instead of "killbox", and you have no word to refer to what the OP is talking about.
First and main exploit in Rimworld combat is abysmal range & rate of fire for automatical weapons.
Second is raiding system relying on sheer amount of bodies (especially in case of tribals and manhunter raids).
Everything else (including killboxes) is based on players forced to deal with those two Tynan-made exploits.
Because pure math says that without abusing other exploits to cover that force-melee you will start loosing your colonists in mid-game+. And many, many players do not like that.
Seriously. Speaking so high about "exploits" when in game heavy machinegun unable to stop frontal attack of naked men is so hypocritical ...
Exploits are core of combat in this game as some of them are part of combat design:
1) forced melee combat & abysmal efficiency of ranged weapons against hordes.
2) enemy almost always have an actions advantage against our colonists.
3) enemy don't care about success of their raids.
So player is forced to participate in attrition war with chances against him in "honest" battles.
Plus this is not RTS with unnamed units. Most players get attached to their pawns and don't like to see them dying in stupid another 3456 raid.
That's why most of us rely to abuse at least some exploits - because game combat is already biased against human player.
And as I'd already said - stop playing a high morale card. Linking someone video who "playing without killboxes" but using a different ways to abuse raiding AI is a
Also mods with stronger turrets help too. Vanilla turrets are not strong enough. Turret should be stronger than a pawn in combat, not weaker. As it is in vanilla turrets are much weaker than any trained pawn.
This is all my opinion, and you can modify the Rimworld according to your tastes. That's the beauty of the game.