Emergency Generators... a game-breaker?

FrozsteiN

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jun 29, 2014, 3:28:22 PM

Fabs wrote:
Basically what says in the title. After testing them in a few games, I'm refusing to use them in a regular game after research because I feel they make the whole game TOO easy. Basically we have 3 IND = 1 DUST, and thats completely out of balance. IMHO, for the generators work preoperly in the game mechanics they should start with an ABUSIVE cost, then add a stack cost into each new one built, like 250 IND for the first one, 300 for the second, 350 for the third and going on.

What you think?

Maybe implement a DEBUFF on all minor modules using the Emergency Generator energy.

Lets say -50% dmg on all minor modules affected.

Holy.Death

Newcomer

Holy.Death

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jul 23, 2014, 9:02:00 PM

DotBeta wrote:
Since the update Generators have become a very expensive and wasteful module, I'm glad I never used them to begin with.

I wouldn't call them wasteful. I think they serve the role of emergency backup generators very well in current state of the game - I managed to reach 8 floor and when looking for an exit Dust became so scarce resource (opened a couple of doors without gaining ANY Dust) that I had to build a few of them only to light up 2-3 more rooms and to be able place more turrets on the way just to keep looking for the exit. For huge cost. I had a lot of Industry (around 200 or so) but each subsequent major module was much more expensive. I went dry trying to power these few rooms. On the other hand, being poor beats being dead. Each emergency generator uses a slot so you can't place them anywhere in the dungeon and they can be targeted and destroyed by some monsters. It's much cheaper to lose any other major module than this one. All in all they seem to be balanced well enough for me. In this version at least.

Zigeye

Newcomer

Zigeye

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jul 6, 2014, 8:37:02 AM

Mysterarts wrote:
I like the idea of the upkeep (surely in indeed) which creates an interesting choice over time ("do I keep it or replace it by Dust powering?") and put an emphasis on the "emergency" term

However, it's a new notion in the game and it has consequences that we need to study (negative global income, balancing...)

I don't know what the best option is. But lets not forget that this module can be operated. With this kind of additional

cost and possible upkeep we might want to do something with the operate ability. The +1 dust per turn is pretty useless. Maybe operating it could have something to do with upkeep reduction, especially if you made the upkeep cost

and

. I'm just thinking out loud, but I do think something to do with it's operate ability may be the answer for balance purposes. Heck for the people who think it's super OP, maybe requiring an operator to even make the thing work with a lower initial industry cost might be a possible solution as well. I'll say it again, lets not forget the operation of this module.

DotBeta

Newcomer

DotBeta

Newcomer

2 200g2g pts

10 years ago

Jul 6, 2014, 7:23:02 AM

Since the update Generators have become a very expensive and wasteful module, I'm glad I never used them to begin with.

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

Bah humbug!

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

10 years ago

Jul 5, 2014, 4:41:05 PM

I don't really think that

only upkeep is wrong per se. I just think that it would be more challenging if it was spread over all persistent resources.

Well balanced, any flavor of upkeep could work well. But spamming can be avoided without upkeep as well.

One of my ideas would be to cap it with research. That could possibly make it unnecessary to add any upkeep.

Generator lv. 1 you can only build one, up to lv. 4 for a maximum of 4 modules.

The strategic component of choosing what to research is there, and there is a cap to avoid spamming.

Code-wise, upkeep seems to be a more complex mechanic than capping it with research levels.

Cytanger

Newcomer

Cytanger

Newcomer

13 400g2g pts

10 years ago

Jul 4, 2014, 5:28:15 PM

Matrilwood wrote:
My personal term for that sort of thing is "Nerf it nowism", and it is a horrible horrible HORRIBLE habit to get into.

I have to agree with Matrilwood on this. This module is potentially OP in normal mode on easy. But by doing more to counter that issue right now are just going to ruin the module when higher difficulties come in. Furthermore "fixes" that apply a

or straight cap really don't make sense for other modes. In a normal game you have a huge advantage in that you know there is an end to the dungeon and approximately how close you are to it.

Taxing

is more than sufficient if the value is high enough. If it's set at +6

you would need dedicated (and operated or paired with pals) industry modules to overcome the tax. That means you'd need to set aside another major slot for each generator or start paying a hefty tax.

That being said I'm not entirely convinced that it's this module which is causing the issues. I'm more inclined to believe that this module is simply OP in a particular mode and difficulty as opposed to the whole game. One possibility is that we are simply seeing too many major module slots in which case a reduction or change in the distribution might solve the issue.

Matrilwood

Newcomer

Matrilwood

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jul 4, 2014, 5:36:43 AM

My personal term for that sort of thing is "Nerf it nowism", and it is a horrible horrible HORRIBLE habit to get into. You seem to have forgotten that all this module does is light up a single room, using

instead of

. Furthermore, it only stops waves from spawning in from a certain direction rather than from spawning at all. This module is only too powerful when certain conditions are met; conditions that will be negated by taxing

as you will have to have a balance of

modules (Which require

to operate) and power modules in order for you to light up the whole level. If you tax

and

which will effectively stump growth in order to gain a minor advantage, then the cost will no longer justify the benefit, especially in endless floor mode, and the module will no longer be useful to anybody. Worse still, the player could no longer justify using

to tech up to that module using those crystal research things, and if the crystal research thing only lets you tech up to that module then that crystal can no longer viably be used to tech up a major module if you can not justify the cost to

and

, thus limiting the player's choices and the entire game would be worse off for it.

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

Bah humbug!

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

10 years ago

Jul 3, 2014, 12:40:09 PM

Your points for not using

are precisely he points that I support for having the min the upkeep.

Powering rooms without dust shouldn't be cheap, it's a last resort with a tradeoff. A strong

can just eat away the

upkeep like it's nothing. But if you split the upkeep in all resources, yes you are having an impact long-term; That's the kind of tradeoff which makes good strategy, and makes the game harder. The game is designed to be hard, and hard it should be.

DEVMysterarts

Dev

Lead Game Designer - Endless Dungeon

DEVMysterarts

Dev

36 000g2g pts

10 years ago

Jul 3, 2014, 10:22:57 AM

Hi,

Thanks for this very interesting discussion

I'm not a big fan of arbitrary cap; the player resources (and the module slots) are already caps.

I like the idea of the upkeep (surely in

indeed) which creates an interesting choice over time ("do I keep it or replace it by Dust powering?") and put an emphasis on the "emergency" term

However, it's a new notion in the game and it has consequences that we need to study (negative global income, balancing...)

Matrilwood

Newcomer

Matrilwood

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jul 3, 2014, 9:44:33 AM

The upkeep cost should only be in

and maybe

. Omitting

which doesn't carry over between levels,

is the most disposable of the

as anything you build doesn't carry over to the next level, where as you use

to level up your heroes and

to acquire new modules.

is the second most disposable

as you can also use it to heal, where as you can ONLY spend

on upgrades. As such, taxing

and

will limit your growth and you don't want to do that; where as taxing

could be seen as a cost saving measure.

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

Bah humbug!

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

10 years ago

Jul 2, 2014, 6:16:05 PM

I think that the increased costs along with the latest patch helped greatly balancing the generators out. The simplest change I would add to avoid abuse would be putting it on research with 4 levels. So, besides the high cost, it would also have to be unlocked with research (as it currently is), but also have a cap on number of generators.

If there is not a cap on number of generators, by all means I think that there should be a

upkeep. Dust is reset on every floor. The point of generators is to have an alternative to dust to power a room. It makes sense to impact the persistent resources, which carry over to other levels. Adding upkeep could also make the generator a bit cheaper, since it will cost the player over time. Upkeep costs the player dearly, but lighting up rooms is critical for survival, so it's strategic and a tradeoff. Turning off the generator would disable the upkeep temporarily. I think upkeep on the generator is perfectly acceptable.

Matrilwood

Newcomer

Matrilwood

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jul 2, 2014, 4:00:52 PM

The problem with a lot of these suggestions is that they leave the module an unviable option. As for the Cap and Upkeep methods, they seem completely unintuitive since, as far as I know, no other node in the game behaves that way.

The problem with a module cap is it will prompt the player to not place down any copies of the module until they are absolutely certain it will be a good spot to place it, and by the time they've explored enough of the level to determine where to place them, they may decide not to place them anyway because the level is almost done anyway and it is no longer worth the

. So they'll just end up never using the thing.

The problem with upkeep cost is that it leaves the module COMPLETELY unviable. I doubt many players could justify what is essentially a substitute of 10

at the cost of a large amount of

and

. Bare in mind that even -1 to any of those negates a third of the bonus from a first tier

module.

Having the generators take a turn to power up doesn't really fix the issue since you can just spend

to power the room temporarily, and is just plain confusing.

I do like the idea of the module debuffing minor modules, since it makes sense that a self powered secondary generator wouldn't be as powerful as the primary

powered generator, but only from a fluff standpoint. It would also give the module room for improvement with tier upgrades and heroes improving the modules performance. Admittedly I haven't actually had a chance to tech up to this module and it's not listed in the wiki for some reason, so I don't know how it works from that end, but by the sounds of things it pretty much doesn't.

I myself am for increasing the cost of the module. If I did it, I'd make it twice the cost of a fully developed room on average, that way you maintain the agency* between laying down a defensive network to repel invaders from that direction, spending

to keep that area lit up or spending a significant amount of

to save the

for where it is more needed.

* See Extra Credits - Feeling of Agency on YouTube for more on this concept.

Fabs

Addict Confirmed

Fabs

Addict Confirmed

35 000g2g pts

10 years ago

Jun 23, 2014, 2:15:04 AM

Basically what says in the title. After testing them in a few games, I'm refusing to use them in a regular game after research because I feel they make the whole game TOO easy. Basically we have 3 IND = 1 DUST, and thats completely out of balance. IMHO, for the generators work preoperly in the game mechanics they should start with an ABUSIVE cost, then add a stack cost into each new one built, like 250 IND for the first one, 300 for the second, 350 for the third and going on.

What you think?

Zigeye

Newcomer

Zigeye

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jun 24, 2014, 6:37:43 PM

Brazilian_Joe wrote:
I would cap the number of generators as follows:

Give it research from level 1 to 4. Each research level increases the maximum number of generators.

I'd make them cost at least twice the cost of the other modules.

I would also maybe add an upkeep cost. In the easiest diffculty ('knitting grandma' difficulty, easier than 'too easy') this upkeep could be reduced to 0. on 'too easy' it could be -1/-1/-1 ind/sci/foo, and on 'easy' -2/-2/-2 per module.

Good ideas, please implement some of these Dev Team!!!! Thank you for increasing costs in 0.8.7

VIPmelkathi

Forgotten VIP

"Golgy in the Lair of the Spider Queen" The best Dungeon of the Endless Boss Expansion that never was.

VIPmelkathi

Forgotten VIP

10 years ago

Jun 24, 2014, 4:19:44 PM

I like the research suggestion

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

Bah humbug!

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

10 years ago

Jun 24, 2014, 2:52:48 PM

I suggested adding upkeep, but I also like the following mechanics:

I like the generator aggro'ing all mobs regardless of type, which has been suggested already.

Instead of the upkeep cost, capping the number of generators could work as an alternative mechanic. I would cap the number of generators as follows:

Give it research from level 1 to 4. Each research level increases the maximum number of generators.

I'd make them cost at least twice the cost of the other modules.

I would also maybe add an upkeep cost. In the easiest diffculty ('knitting grandma' difficulty, easier than 'too easy') this upkeep could be reduced to 0. on 'too easy' it could be -1/-1/-1 ind/sci/foo, and on 'easy' -2/-2/-2 per module.

VIPmelkathi

Forgotten VIP

"Golgy in the Lair of the Spider Queen" The best Dungeon of the Endless Boss Expansion that never was.

VIPmelkathi

Forgotten VIP

10 years ago

Jun 24, 2014, 6:07:42 AM

Or have the generator take a turn to power up. Give the monsters a chance to eat it.

Zigeye

Newcomer

Zigeye

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jun 24, 2014, 5:51:06 AM

Why don't you just limit the amount of Generators that can be build. Even making it only 1 would solve the problem. I try to incorporate each Major Module in my build, LAN being the exception based on mob types, and the game is fun and interesting. No one NEEDS more than 1 generator to win. Cap it. Problem solved.

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

Bah humbug!

Brazilian_Joe

Refreezerator

10 years ago

Jun 24, 2014, 5:48:26 AM

I think that giving the emergency generators an upkeep cost would go a long way balancing them out.

I think that the upkeep should be a penalty in

, but NOT

.

I lso think that this should be a cumulative upkeep. The first generator would cost a -2/-2/-2 per turn, besides the production cost. The second would have the upkeep increased to -3/-3/-3; making for a total upkeep of -5/-5/-5. Adding a third generator would increase the cost by -4/-4/-4, increasing the total upkeep to -9/-9/-9. Each additional generator increases the upkeep cost of the next generator by 1.

This way, the upkeep cost scales up rapidly with the number of generators, making it hard to just plop them willy-nilly.

VIPmelkathi

Forgotten VIP

"Golgy in the Lair of the Spider Queen" The best Dungeon of the Endless Boss Expansion that never was.

VIPmelkathi

Forgotten VIP

10 years ago

Jun 23, 2014, 1:35:22 PM

currently it is very unlikely that the generator will be destroyed. My "winning strategy" is to have 1 or 2 industry modules and 1 or 2 food modules. Have one of each operated and one slot free for a shop. Everything else is generators. With someone with high wit operating a major industry module, I get 15-20 industry per door, more once the module is upgraded. On later floors I'll easily be at 30 industry per door. If I build 1 generator per 2 doors, I still come out with more industry than I had at the start of the floor. I also will get 0 waves though, only fighting monsters as part of the door event. It means I'll spend nearly no food at all on healing. So with only a couple of modules, I'll still produce all the food I could need for levelling.

On Easy difficulty it is very easy on floors 8-10 to light every single room this way and have enough industry to spare for another 5 floors.

DEVMysterarts

Dev

Lead Game Designer - Endless Dungeon

DEVMysterarts

Dev

36 000g2g pts

10 years ago

Jun 23, 2014, 1:23:07 PM

Hi,

I agree with you and the incremental cost is a good idea

(By the way, "3 IND = 1 DUST" is not completely accurate because the generator use the major slot and can be destroyed ^^)

Cytanger

Newcomer

Cytanger

Newcomer

13 400g2g pts

10 years ago

Jun 23, 2014, 1:19:49 PM

I'm going to hold judgement on the generators till we see what higher difficulty levels are like. While I agree that they are too easily obtained for the current difficulties, they may be a necessary and balanced as a part of harder difficulties. If higher difficulties result in tighter resources, it won't make sense to make the prohibitively expensive in easy mode as they'll just be impossible to obtain elsewhere. That being said an increasing cost per generator would be fine. It's what all the other major modules do after all. I could see the base cost going up slightly but I wouldn't imagine the generators being out of line with other major modules that effect the whole floor. After all these generators only power a single room.

VIPmelkathi

Forgotten VIP

"Golgy in the Lair of the Spider Queen" The best Dungeon of the Endless Boss Expansion that never was.

VIPmelkathi

Forgotten VIP

10 years ago

Jun 23, 2014, 12:16:48 PM

I think 250 for the first would be too much, but I agree that something has to be done about them. Costs should definitely increase with each generator built.

Of course the generators also have the problem that they were added alongside with all the other changes that already were making the game easier.

Another thing is that perhaps we need to experiment with monster aggro regarding generators. If monsters are attracted to the crystal because of the power it generates, it would make sense if they would react similarly to the gennies. So perhaps all monsters, regardless of type should attack them?

sarconic

Newcomer

sarconic

Newcomer

10 years ago

Jun 23, 2014, 9:03:04 AM

I agree. Generators are far too easy to build and destroy any difficulty in later levels.