Another "direction of the game thread" and iam concerned...

[Roland]

I think he is saying "killing the horde would leave us a repair bill that we are not prepared to pay". I completely understand where he is coming from. I've seen what Demolishers can do even to solid Steel fortress bases. I am probably more prepared than Orclover is to foot that repair bill, but I fully understand his complaint. I've had horde nights with tons of Demolishers and I have tried to fight them "legit" (i.e no exploits). It isn't pretty once your gamestage is high, and especially in multi-player.

 

You are absolutely right that this approach presumes that killing the horde is the objective on blood moon. I would argue that it is absolutely is. ALWAYS. Why? Because avoiding the the horde - and just "surviving" - as you put it, is is no challenge whatsoever. To the point of being a no-brainer. Just pick one of the following:

 

a) Sit on top of a big POI, make it tricky for them to path up to you, and do not interact with horde till morning.

 

b) Get on your push bike and just cycle for 4 hours in a big circular road, and do not interact with the horde till morning.

 

c) Build a base that exploits the A17 AI with an infinite ramp or maze. Do not interact with the horde till morning.

 

See the connection between these options? Yup....do not interact with the horde till morning. If you are at a high gamestage and your horde will be 1000 zombies, and your Max Alive is set to 32, then you will have 32 zombies arrive. If you kill none of them, then no others can spawn. You will likely never see a Demolisher. Come morning just mop up the 32 who can no longer threaten you as they cannot run any more. Job done.

 

So why is this a bad thing? Because it is totally dull and challenge free? You might as well turn off the horde and save yourself the inconvenience of avoiding them. imo of course. If you disagree I would ask you simply this. Why bother with that minor inconvenience? You didn't face the challenge, you avoided it, which was extremely easy. Why bother? I genuinely don't get it.

 

 

 

Is he facing Demolishers yet? Here's the deal....until those b******s appear, just about any old base design can easily handle the blood moon hordes with little to no effort and no exploits. There's a rite of passage here (for those not willing to exploit/avoid and who want to legit FIGHT the horde). It begins when the Demolishers first appear and usually ends shortly thereafter in dejection when your beautiful fortress is in utter ruins.

 

So what is it that you want? Ever since the blood moon mechanic was introduced it has been presented as a "Space Invaders" type of design where the enemy force gets progressively more and more difficult and the player will never "win" but simply survives as long as he can until he is eventually overwhelmed. If the blood moon horde only gets difficult up to a point and then can be contained then boredom usually follows. If the blood moon continues to get difficult then as a player each time you play you can try to stretch your survival a bit further.

[Ghostlight]

He had the first demolisher last horde. It was just one, but it's done quite some damage.

 

Kage848 will have to rework the base. It's a melee base with poles and that will be a problem in the future. The zombies do six times the damage to pole blocks for unknown reasons. For example, the demolisher does 3000 damage per hit to poles. Normally he does 500 damages per hit to blocks.

 

Does Kage know this?

 

And is that 3000 damage to poles their normal melee swing? Not their explosion? If so, a bug surely?

[meganoth]

My take on the demolisher: This is the enemy that pushes you to use electricity, especially electric wires to slow him down. You have to slow them down already from far away. So either lots of electric wires or preferably smaller paths between simple concrete outer walls and more concentrated electric wires.

[RipClaw]

In most cases it is relatively clear. If you can't either AND they can hit the slope block then it is no exploit.

 

Even if only you can run up, it most likely isn't an exploit as well, because you can already jump on ladders 2 blocks up from the ground to get the same functionality.

 

If they can't hit and destroy the slope blocks because it is slanted away from them, THEN it is most definitely an exploit.

 

The zombies could hit the blocks, but they don't do it. They try to run them up but don't make it. You can't run it up yourself but jump up.

 

But see for yourself:

 

If you're assuming that a zombie should be able to do anything I can, a lot of things would count as an exploit.

For example I can open and close doors but a zombie can not. Is opening and closing a door an exploit?

[Roland]

Demolishers make that design 100% non-viable.

 

That's not my point. My point is that there was a "best base" design that most everyone followed once it became known. It didn't matter that there were other ways of doing it--that was the one that was chosen because it was seen as best. So who tried other designs? Just those intrepid players trying to discover if there might not be an even better way. I'm saying that people who complain that base design is very limited now are the same people who pretty much always stuck to one design-- whichever one they learned was best to defeat the horde. And there are still those same types of players now in A18 who are experimenting and trying to find better and better base designs. And they'll succeed and then be copied by the 98%.

 

Now, as to your claim...So what? That design can get a player through quite a bit of the game especially if they aren't intentionally trying to power farm xp so that their game stage isn't rising at an ungodly rate. There's nothing wrong with changing your design when a new foe starts to appear.

 

 

 

This is the complaint. Non-engagement with the horde is now the way to play. Pffft from me. It offers no challenge. what's the point?

 

Non-engagement is the way to play for those who want no challenge. If you want a challenge then that is your intrinsic reward for success. Once that challenge becomes insurmountable or you just get tired of the cycle then that's your endgame. Post your day and gamestage and then start over or move on to another game. It amazes me that people who have gotten 1000+ hours of entertainment from one game feel cheated somehow that it won't go on forever.

[meganoth]

Demolishers make that design 100% non-viable.

 

 

 

This is the complaint. Non-engagement with the horde is now the way to play. Pffft from me. It offers no challenge. what's the point?

 

As I have hinted, we have one more cunning base design to try that allows engagement with the horde and no exploits, and acceptable repair bills. And should - on paper - handle Demolishers. We shall see. After that, it is we quit or mod them out, end of story - will depend on whether my buddies keep playing because I don't really enjoy survival games played solo.

 

I'm not sure a demolisher-filled Bloodmoon will leave a big POI standing all night if you don't engage them (needs testing probably). Naturally you can prepare more than one POI and hop to the next POI ahead of collapse, but it might mean preparing 3 big POIs per horde night. So it has a cost too.

 

Your other two examples were definitely exploits and not what DeadGerry meant when he said "surviving the horde". The objective can be to slow down the horde, keep it occupied by switching locations, lead them through barbed wire or electric wire. Any strategy probably has to include killing demolishers fast, but some low-level feral doesn't need to be killed as fast as possible if he hits on some concrete block all alone.

[Roland]

If you're assuming that a zombie should be able to do anything I can, a lot of things would count as an exploit.

For example I can open and close doors but a zombie can not. Is opening and closing a door an exploit?

 

Of course everyone's metric of what constitutes an exploit is going to be somewhat different and of course, our own desires and preferences will color and bias our perspective. When it is blatant then 99% of people will agree but there are plenty of gray areas where debate about whether something is an exploit will always occur.

 

In this case, since zombies can eventually break the door I don't think it is an exploit. I see shutting doors as good strategy but that could simply be my own bias since I like using doors to delay and prevent myself from getting overwhelmed. Someone else who loves taking on 5 zombies at a time in a family room and has gotten good at it would look at my tactic as me exploiting a weakness in the zombies. Then someone else who might prefer not being so bothered by zombies at all while they explore or loot might wish zombies could never break through things and the simple act of shutting a door would make them safe forever which I would see as being an exploit.

 

The only thing that matters is what the developers see as an exploit or undesirable behaviors as they have the power to make changes that close those exploits and behaviors.

[RipClaw]

Does Kage know this?

 

I don't think so.

 

And is that 3000 damage to poles their normal melee swing? Not their explosion? If so, a bug surely?

 

Yes it is the normal hit. I don't know why.

 

(Minute 1:08:38)

[meganoth]

The zombies could hit the blocks, but they don't do it. They try to run them up but don't make it. You can't run it up yourself but jump up.

 

Can't or don't, where is the difference? If the zombies don't hit those blocks, then THAT is the exploit, or better said a bug in the AI.

 

But see for yourself:

 

If you're assuming that a zombie should be able to do anything I can, a lot of things would count as an exploit.

For example I can open and close doors but a zombie can not. Is opening and closing a door an exploit?

 

Where did you read that? I myself talked about jumping 2 blocks up on a ladder, which zombies can't do, directly in that posting. And this is exactly the reason why jumping up there is **most likely** not considered an exploit because you can do the same already with a ladder

[JaxTeller718]

 

As I have hinted, we have one more cunning base design to try that allows engagement with the horde and no exploits, and acceptable repair bills. And should - on paper - handle Demolishers.

 

You have put a lot of conditions on what you feel is acceptable. Ive seen countless streamers handle them by just killing them ranged. I dont think they are intended to be passively killed without doing serious damage but I feel that is ok because what is a tower defense game with predictable outcomes and uninspired ways to overcome them?

[meganoth]

Yes it is the normal hit. I don't know why.

 

(Minute 1:08:38)

 

Someone said he had proof this is because zombies can get nearer to poles (i.e. a distance less than 1 block because they can stand inside the block) than to full blocks (distance 1 block).

 

**IF** he is right, it would also mean zombies do different damage depending from what side they hit a pole.

[RipClaw]

Can't or don't, where is the difference? If the zombies don't hit those blocks, then THAT is the exploit, or better said a bug in the AI.

 

The difference between is the zombies would have the blocks within range. There's nothing stopping them from doing it except the AI's decision not to do it but to try to run up the slope.

 

Where did you read that? I myself talked about jumping 2 blocks up on a ladder, which zombies can't do, directly in that posting. And this is exactly the reason why jumping up there is **most likely** not considered an exploit because you can do the same already with a ladder

 

Okay, then I read that wrong.

[RipClaw]

Someone said he had proof this is because zombies can get nearer to poles (i.e. a distance less than 1 block because they can stand inside the block) than to full blocks (distance 1 block).

 

**IF** he is right, it would also mean zombies do different damage depending from what side they hit a pole.

 

That can't be right. The demolisher only does 500 damage on a quarter block. The same applies to a plate, which is thinner than a pole.

[Hollowprime]

Doesn't the demolisher practically makes turrets obsolete end game because they shoot his comically sci-fi button of destruction that destroys the base you are trying to protect?

[AtomicUs5000]

Can't or don't, where is the difference? If the zombies don't hit those blocks, then THAT is the exploit, or better said a bug in the AI.

 

Yes, better said.

I think everyone needs to stop calling AI behavior exploits and start calling them bugs.

 

It is not our job to worry about whether or not we are exploiting the game on this level. When a game has an exploit in its finished product it is because something was overlooked and someone found it after release. If the zombie behavior has the community doing things like pointing fingers at one another or this zombie behavior is so prevalent that you end up questioning your every move when trying to build a simple base, then this is a bug... an unaccepted issue that the devs need to address.

[RipClaw]

Doesn't the demolisher practically makes turrets obsolete end game because they shoot his comically sci-fi button of destruction that destroys the base you are trying to protect?

 

If you fire at the front, then yes. If you shoot at the back it can't happen as long as he doesn't turn around.

The turrets can be used as vulture defense as long as you point them upwards.

 

I recently read a comment summarizing A18: "This base works great, as long as a demolisher doesn't blow up."

[meganoth]

The difference between is the zombies would have the blocks within range. There's nothing stopping them from doing it except the AI's decision not to do it but to try to run up the slope.

 

Yes, I suspected this already, didn't even watch the video because for determining an exploit it doesn't matter why the AI does what it does. The result is the same: A block that is an unsurmountable undestroyable barrier. It can't get any simpler to determine that this is an exploit (sorry, ... AI bug )

 

That can't be right. The demolisher only does 500 damage on a quarter block. The same applies to a plate, which is thinner than a pole.

 

If the demo did attack the plate or quarter block from the inner side, then the explanation is wrong. If he attacked the outer side this is still possible

 

EDIT: To clarify: The inner side of a block is the side where you can stand inside the volume of the whole block.

[AtomicUs5000]

If you fire at the front, then yes. If you shoot at the back it can't happen as long as he doesn't turn around.

The turrets can be used as vulture defense as long as you point them upwards.

 

I recently read a comment summarizing A18: "This base works great, as long as a demolisher doesn't blow up."

 

Originally the idea for demolishers was that they would do less damage to terrain.

So, I figured that I would be able to make walls 3 blocks thick... like concrete on the outside with a dirt center to help mitigate the explosion damage. I thought this was a neat idea... to build your base with different materials to handle different kinds of damage. Then they changed their mind on that just moments before release and I was instantly disappointed.

[Noctoras]

Many players have separate bases for horde night vs the rest of the time. Many players are happy with creating smaller bases that work well against the blood moon horde. For those who want to be creative and build huge structures, it is totally possible to do so as long as you don't also use them to fight the horde on blood moon nights. On default blood moon is only 1 day out of 7 and you can change that to make them less frequent. I disagree with your description of 98% of the player base being unable to build creative structures because they must also use those structures to defend against the blood moon horde.

 

 

Finally, I doubt that it is only 2% of the player base achieving larger bases that are viable against horde night. It might be 2% that discover a way to do it but such base designs go viral pretty quickly after each alpha that introduces adjustments that cause people to adapt.

 

Before A17 the most dominant base design I saw in videos and photos and in descriptions was a deep pit leading to a protected area surrounded by columns with gaps the zombies couldn't get through or attack through but the player could attack through and loot through. Over and over again as I looked at different bases this was by far the preferred design for those who liked to engage with the horde. The most popular design for those who did not want to engage with the horde was a stilt base design. There were so many stilt bases talked about and shown.

 

People like to talk about earlier alphas and about how creative and free we were to design anything. But what really happened was that 2% of the player base figured something out and the rest of us copied...

 

The latter is true. And of course my 2% were synonym for "small percentage". The current problem I see is that bases are initially relatively safe and whilst you improve yourself it gets more and more unsafe instead of safe, since the pace of external threats is mounting quicker than the pace of base upgrading, especially once the demos come into play.

 

In the end, leveling up fells less of a reward, if external threats grow disproportionally. I'd prefer to have the opportunity to create safer bases with advanced technology. It's a fine line for it not to become boring, because everything is all self-sustaining, that's for sure. Currently, though, you rather feel punished for adancing.

 

See, I think A18 is a really good build and it is not my intention to dig at the devs here. I'm just saying I wish that the benefit-punishment-ratio for leveling up would lean more towards the benefit. That's just me and I appreciate that other people have different opinions.

[RipClaw]

You have put a lot of conditions on what you feel is acceptable. Ive seen countless streamers handle them by just killing them ranged. I dont think they are intended to be passively killed without doing serious damage but I feel that is ok because what is a tower defense game with predictable outcomes and uninspired ways to overcome them?

 

There is probably nothing more uninspired than a tower from which one shoots at zombies and throws grenades. But that's exactly what works best against the demolishers. You shoot at him to trigger the explosion.

 

The sophisticated bases with traps and corridors take significantly more damage when a demolisher explodes than a simple 7x7 tower filled with reinforced concrete and two layers of steel.

[Noctoras]

So what is it that you want? Ever since the blood moon mechanic was introduced it has been presented as a "Space Invaders" type of design where the enemy force gets progressively more and more difficult and the player will never "win" but simply survives as long as he can until he is eventually overwhelmed.

 

I just don't see the necessity of the game to necessarily end this way. The game has sure shifted into a run and gun type of game, unfortunately at the price of the sandbox and building aspect, which becomes a moot point, if I know my work is gonna be f*c*ed anyway sooner or later.

 

Build small, grind as much ammo as you can currently is the recipe for success. As you stated, building is not, if I know my base is going to be wasted anytime soon no matter what. Actually I think it would help the game right now if you could NOT shoot everything that moves and have to weigh carefully when to utilise a gun or when melee has to do the job. That's what survival is about to me, not to play quake on voxels.

 

A18 was a huge positive step, it's just the focus on looting and shooting and the doubtful viability of building and developing which might need some rework in my opinion.

[Ghostlight]

I'm not sure a demolisher-filled Bloodmoon will leave a big POI standing all night if you don't engage them (needs testing probably).

 

First Demolisher always comes at the end of the first wave. At GS 153 - which is where Demolisher can first appear though the chance is low - your horde is 216 zombies per player. My thought was that if you kill no zombies at all, no new ones can spawn, and thus the horde is limited to whatever you've got MaxAlive set at. Say 32. First 32 zombies spawn and no more since you don't kill any. Hence no Demolishers.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

So what is it that you want? .

 

Demolisher explosion damage nerfed to hell.

[Ghostlight]

Doesn't the demolisher practically makes turrets obsolete end game because they shoot his comically sci-fi button of destruction that destroys the base you are trying to protect?

 

Yes. They will turn around. Also most Blade Trap usage will set them off as well, except blade traps hung from ceiling 3 blocks up that can only hit Demolisher heads (and no other zombies!). And I read elsewhere that this has been stealth changed so Demolishers are 1 half block shorter than they used to be so that trick no longer works. If you lower your traps they will set off the charge.

[Ghostlight]

There is probably nothing more uninspired than a tower from which one shoots at zombies and throws grenades. But that's exactly what works best against the demolishers. You shoot at him to trigger the explosion.

 

Correct. Basically you shoot them and/or throw explosives at them. You're aim sucks (or you just don't care and blaze away with your M60 max recoil) so they will just explode. The idea is that they are exploding somewhere you 100% do not care about. So basically the oldest school bases - the primitive towers with a simple kill box below to gather the horde - that we all built back when we were little noobs, are your best bet. I've heard MM builds such bases. :/

 

It's an OK approach ofc, but your bill for the horde night at high gamestage / difficulty is going to be MASSIVE in terms of the sheer number of rounds you will fire or grenades you will use up. And as an approach to the horde, it's not exact showing any "finesse" is it?

 

And yes my genius new base idea is kind of based on this principle, but considerably more elaborate.

[AtomicUs5000]

Yes. They will turn around. Also most Blade Trap usage will set them off as well, except blade traps hung from ceiling 3 blocks up that can only hit Demolisher heads (and no other zombies!). And I read elsewhere that this has been stealth changed so Demolishers are 1 half block shorter than they used to be so that trick no longer works. If you lower your traps they will set off the charge.

 

What if they walk on half blocks or sheets to raise them back up that little bit? I'm sure someone has already tried that, I just don't know the results.