Solar panels and batteries: number nerdiness

[jjgoldman]

You mean, you prefer if people who spend a lot of time thinking stuff over don't get better result than ones who half-ass it through? o_O

Don't be ridiculous.  I'm happy to have some kind of concept of "reserve" power and advantages to utilizing it, but If I have to manipulate the system to have it by destroying and building power connections to make it a reality I don't think it will be a fun part of the game. 

By the same token if you could have a huge advantage constantly micromanaging any other aspect of the game, say combat for instance, the effect of micromanaging should be diminished in favour of the effectiveness of the overall design.  Making the occasional adjustment is fine.  ie. "Shoot that guy, not the other guy", but if you could do with 1 what would normally be done with 4, then the obvious path is for everyone to micromanage which I do not beleive is Tynan's intent, nor the way the games he draws inspiration from do it.

This is why games like Dwarf Fortress get so complicated to build.  Because ridding the game of manipulations while keeping the strategies that underlie those manipulations is the true intent.

My impression is that the overall design process, macro management and adjustment therein are intended to be the fun part of Rimworld. 

[Galileus]

I still don't get your point. If you don't find micro-management fun, don't do it. It's not like you have to, you will be just fine with minor adjustments. If you don't want to count every watt in your battery to optimize it, nothing bad will happen, you can still play and win. But if some people want to do it, why forbid them? Why even consider it?

In every game you'll find someone min-maxing and getting optimal results. I must say I've never seen a game trying to forbid you from doing that. It's like putting a timer on skill-tree choice in RPG - just so that you make sure someone won't sit down and count all that DPS and what-a-not to find the optimal choice. I don't get it.

[jjgoldman]

I still don't get your point. If you don't find micro-management fun, don't do it. It's not like you have to, you will be just fine with minor adjustments. If you don't want to count every watt in your battery to optimize it, nothing bad will happen, you can still play and win. But if some people want to do it, why forbid them? Why even consider it?

That is my point.  I don't agree with your characterization that the concept put forward is mere optimization.

You say that it isn't required.   However if I can remove or substantially mitigate a major hazard from the game then what I do is going to part of the gameplay, and therefore should be supported by the game interface, and not a function of manipulating a game mechanic.   Greatly reducing short explosions and ensuring you have a reserve of power in those situations I believe falls into the category of "substantial mitigation", and I'm all in favour of it, if indeed Tynan desires us to be able to mitigate that risk.  But if it's going to be part of the game, then make it part of the game system, not a manipulation of destroying and building conduits.  Perhaps make a conduit killswitch or breaker.  Perhaps build in a power management interface.  But something that makes the whole process overt and easier to manage if indeed I've designed that into my base.

[Galileus]

Ah, now it sounds much more reasonable. I wouldn't say I have all that much problems with that in this scenario, but I definitely get the point and agree to some degree. Degree that doesn't go as far as saying "it stinks"

[Stickle]

I agree with jjgoldman. As it stands, I do the same as you guys with batteries; I build in racks of them, charge them up rack by rack and disconnect them when full. Sure, it's 'optimizing,' but a better description would be 'tedious.' It is not fun manually building and selling the conduits to make this work.

And it's clear that Tynan didn't really want this to be possible, at least not to this extent. Which is why he implemented shorts to discourage us from building massive energy reserves, so that darkness related events maintain their edge. The way they were implemented allows us to do it anyway, just tiresomely. I'm pretty sure he'll address this eventually, but there are probably more pressing concerns for now.

I, for one, would like the ability to maintain significant energy backups without gaming the system, at the cost of either extra investment/maintenance, a more complex energy system, or shorts that aren't all-or-nothing.

[Nasikabatrachus]

Why do people consider rack-charging-and-disconnecting to be micromanagement? For a game on the scale of RimWorld, I'd have thought it was just plain old management.

[Ric]

Thanks for the numbers OP. Much appreciated.

On the topic of the micro, if this is over the top micro to you guys, you should never try a game that actually requires micro..lol...As poster above says, this is very simple management mechanics. A game at this stage in development is always going to require things like this.

A future solution could be the addition of a power switch. So you don't have to connect or disconnect a battery building deleting laying conduit, you would just setup a switch somewhere close & flick it on & of when required. Even better, you could have a dedicated switch room or some other mechanics thrown in(eg:Switch 1 setup to flip on at night time to allow night storage to be used & then goes off at lunch next day once recharged using the morning sun)

Just an idea anyway.

[ShadowDragon8685]

And it's clear that Tynan didn't really want this to be possible, at least not to this extent. Which is why he implemented shorts to discourage us from building massive energy reserves, so that darkness related events maintain their edge. The way they were implemented allows us to do it anyway, just tiresomely. I'm pretty sure he'll address this eventually, but there are probably more pressing concerns for now.

It seems to me that there's some "You're not allowed to win" ethos going on here, that the idea of RimWorld is that it must be a neverending "O'Brien Must Suffer" episode. Anyone remember Deep Space Nine? Remember how any episode focused on Chief of Operations Miles Edward O'Brien always, always, involved that poor man living through some flavor of Hell or another?

(Hell, even some non-O'Brien Must Suffer episodes got in a lot of O'Brien Suffering. Remember Worf's bachelor party? That was an entirely-new, Klingon-flavored Hell for Miles to suffer through! The only consolation was that Bashir got to suffer through it with him. )

Point is, I don't like the "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality that a lot of people on these forums seem to be espousing. "Don't build lots of batteries, because they'll short out and explode your base. You have to suffer through the long nights and if you're not, that's because you're being degenerate somehow."

What? Seriously, what?

That's up there with telling me that I'm supposed to lose colonists every time those damn raiders come to pay a visit, and if I'm not taking casualties left and right, I'm playing wrong somehow.

Sod that. Let's get some motherfragging surge protectors up in this joint.

[Galileus]

If you can negate the whole even by simply building 4 more batteries, where's the tension in that? If you can so simply negate any event, where's the tension in that? The very reason these events are in game is to provide challenge and keep you on your toes, sometimes go against a fatal mix of events that puts you at a considerable risk and forces to play it well to get through it unscathed. A considerable effort on player's part needs to be there in order to have a chance to negate whole events completely - and building/removing one connector is simply not that effort.

So yeah, O'Brien needs to suffer, and Bashir is there to make sure he does. And as long as we don't get another Weasly, I'm ok with that.

[DarkMyau]

At the start of each game. I build 2 solar collectors and a room for 12 batteries. Gets me off to a good start. But when I can, I like to have an extra 12 batteries and upto 12 more solar collectors...more if neded

[ShadowDragon8685]

If you can negate the whole even by simply building 4 more batteries, where's the tension in that? If you can so simply negate any event, where's the tension in that? The very reason these events are in game is to provide challenge and keep you on your toes, sometimes go against a fatal mix of events that puts you at a considerable risk and forces to play it well to get through it unscathed. A considerable effort on player's part needs to be there in order to have a chance to negate whole events completely - and building/removing one connector is simply not that effort.

So yeah, O'Brien needs to suffer, and Bashir is there to make sure he does. And as long as we don't get another Weasly, I'm ok with that.

Building and removing one connector is too much effort. That's why surge protectors were invented.

Because getting random fuck-you events designed to punish you for doing the smart thing and saving up for times of sunlight scarcity during times of plenty is just kicking the player in the crotch.

[Semmy]

Altough i do believe galileuso' brien loves getting kicked in the crotch.
I do think its a bit overdone at the moment.
If you lay your powerworks in a good decent way there should be a  possibility to protect your batteries. The surge protectors don't always work in real life. So it should be possible to put them in game and make them prevent powersurges for a certain amount.

Also one needs to think if there is a surge protector on wich side does the short circuit happen. Maybe it happens on the wrong side and your battery park dies. I mean powerplants burn down as well. Power distribution houses aswell.

This does however ask for a way more complex powergame than there is now. I do see the possibilities and ways to protect yourself. But just like real life stuff happens.
But alteast we should be able to try and protect ourselves. Maybe give o'brien a cup to protect his crotch. It will still hurt like **** but atleast a little bit less.

[Galileus]

I'm not against being able to protect oneself from such events, hell no. Late in the game it's completely viable to have a power switch and laugh that surge/eclipse combo in the face. Late in game there should be a complete different set of challenges. Like switch fail/surge/eclipse combo! Nah, that one is a joke obviously But as Semmy points out - stuff happens and needs to happen. So early game Eclipse needs to be this big event and later there needs to be this surge/eclipse combo that keeps you biting your toenails, wondering if that low energy you gathered after the surge will keep your people alive during the eclipse. And to be sincere, I've never lost a man due to that combo. It gets them pretty stressed, but never drags anyone over the line.

But there is a "late game negation" and there is "why even bother putting it in?" negation. If you can negate whole negative event by just removing one connection... seriously, what's the point of that event? Of course that doesn't mean you can't take any measures against it - a real nutkick would be an event that cannot be ever addressed in any way. This is a seriously bad thing too. There needs to be a way to counter an event to some degree at least, especially if it is a global event with serious consequences.

[Semmy]

Indeed if by building a simple surge protector solves your problem for 100% its no use putting it in.
Like with everything If there is a way to be 100% sure to win why not show the victorie screen when you start the game.

There should always be the possibility of loosing. But within reasonable limits. Not like dwarf fortress where at some point you are just doomed to get kicked in the groin by either the enemies Urist mcDiggs WhereEverHeWants or your fps.

But i would sure love it if there always is a way wich screws you over.

WOHOOOOO i got my surge protector.
KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEM
Short circuit in your battery park.. And at that moment 5 goons run into my battery room trying to extinghuish the fire.
One gets his coat stuck in the fire and starts running around setting the rest on fire wich in turn start running around setting the rest on fire d-:

[Galileus]

This reminds me of Cherry