Is it my fault that you conflated my comments?Īlso I never made a guess as to which audience is larger, so please don't suggest I did.
Somewhere along the line, ideas bounced through discussions of multiple server options. I linked it here to the OP in a comment, yes. I initially suggested safe zones in a thread, yes. You linked to your own thread about safe zones, came to a thread about safe zones, and want to suggest multiple servers, but I'm putting you down? Who decides who is a larger audience? I'm inclined to believe that the reason is the former, and that out of contempt and stubbornness you just simply refuse to submit to and apply the good advice that other players have given you. A trick, as I have pointed out in other threads, that is rare to begin with. (b) you really are so bad at this game that you keep falling for the same trick over and over again. (a) Intentional hyperbole to support your argument, or Statements you have made elsewhere, like "You might as well just stay planted around outposts, kill people who put the time and effort into earning the loot, and cash in on their work" have been anything but rational and reasonable.Īnd you're making such statements for one of two reasons. You, yourself, are downplaying the role you've taken in these conversations. You're a rube if you get ambushed over and over again and refuse to learn from your mistakes. You're not a rube for being ambushed occasionally, it's going to happen to everyone from time to time. You're right about one thing - I should have better qualified that statement when I made it. Like calling people "rubes", for example. I still think the reaction received to objectively suggesting PVE elements is met with contempt to the level of ad hominems. It's not really viable for long rail lines, since those have a really poor surface area to perimeter ratio.If you say so. :V (We've managed to avoid needing automatic repairs so far, until Behemoths started attacking our less well-cleared-out perimeters.) I'll have to play around with them, I haven't used flamethrower turrets much, mostly because I'm lazy and don't want to have to set up supply provisioning. I guess we can include it with repair packs on a small maintenance train. That might be more viable for our main base area (still rail-cell-based, but it's a cleared area with a defended perimeter), but for remote outposts it does imply getting fuel out there occasionally, and distributing it to the turrets. The other thing you can do is spend more research on the +Damage technologies, so that the Turrets get more Punch.
#Outpost zero game ail gun plus
Plus it has a 45 Damage base, vs the 20 Dmg Base of a Laser Turret.
And Fire Damage really helps, Biters are really vulnerable against it, it sticks to the Ground and Damages all the Biters at one spot. If you hook them up to Crude Oil, you have a Pipeline to the refinery at the same time. All you need is Underground Pipes and the Turrets.
Weltvagbund wrote:Add some Flamethrower turrets. Is the "artificial tree" method (walls placed in a checkerboard pattern) still effective against behemoths? Belts going outwards? Any suggestions for stopping behemoths from stopping travelling trains?
What kind of techniques do you guys use to deal with attacks at remote outposts and for your rails? Since they're remote, the ideal solution should be cheap and minimal (just "good enough"), so we can carry defensives as part of our build train I've seen some gigantic multilayered fortifications on here, but regardless of whether they're overkill, having fortifications that literally double the surface area of an outpost isn't really viable! Nor is defending a rail line like that. I've looked around on /r/factorio and the forums but haven't found too much late-game defense discussions-dunno if I'm using the wrong search terms or just overestimating how strong behemoths are! We haven't been very careful about managing evolution on this server. This is the first time I've gotten to the point of having behemoths to deal with.
0 kommentar(er)
