Colonist planning vs "Hand of god" style

[Cerberus]

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but here goes:
Currently the game mostly offers the player control through orders. For example, to build a wall segment, the player makes a build order and one of the colonists will at their convenience build the segment.

However, there are a few exceptions where the colonists have no influence on what is happening in the game world. The player can directly ignite a Blasting Charge, and sell all items that have been build.

It might be cool to have everything carried out by colonists, as it improves immersion and realism.

Here are some concrete suggestions along those lines:
1) Selling vs decommission
Selling items that has been built is a "Hand of God" action, since the item being sold simply vanishes. It also doesn't make much sense, since who am I selling to?

Selling could be replaced with "decommission" which is an order placed on a built object. When an object is decommissioned, a colonist will come by and dismantle the object for a fraction gain of its original build cost. This adds some drama to battles and mining, since the player now has to consider the colonists health too.

2) Igniting blasting charges
Since a blasting charge is mining equipment, it should really be ignited by a colonist. This has the added benefit of making blasting charges more dangerous for the colonists in combat, since raiders may get a shot at them before they get to ignite and return to cover.

[Galileus]

Decommission is coming

As for the charges and such - these are really better off being being looked at on case-by-case basis and not with a global "god-hand or not" setting. It's simply way more important to have a solid gameplay than to have everything fall into certain categories in immersion department. It's a solid point if the immersion boost is a huge factor - in this case it's a very minor thing, that most players wouldn't notice. I think it would be a major problem with design later on if you would tie your hands like that.

I have nothing against keeping that in mind - but sticking to it despite problems with gameplay may not be a good idea.

[Creepypastaanime]

well, for blasting charges, a colonist could be holding the detonator and simply commanding it to explode is really commanding the colonist who has the detonator to detonate it.

[Cerberus]

Decommission is coming

Awesome! That should add some interesting gameplay. Would you by any chance have a source on this? A link or quote, perhaps?

It's a solid point if the immersion boost is a huge factor - in this case it's a very minor thing, that most players wouldn't notice.

Actually, I think it could be a pretty significant thing for a game like this where story is the foundation. Consider a battle between raiders and colonists. In the current version of the game, you can plaster the raiders route with blasting charges, sit back and see the raiders being blown to bits little by little as they advance, while the colonist just sit back and relax at their base. This is a boring story, with little potential for drama.

Imagine if the player must issue colonists to go out and set blasting charges to ignite. Much more intense. You have to consider placing the charges in places where you can ignite them without being shot at ( imagine being shot stunned as you are trying to leave the blasting charge you just ignited ). You have to plan the exit route for the colonist that ignites the charges, so he doesn't get caught between raider groups coming from both sides.

Even if blasting charges are activated remotely by a colonist with a radio, the story benefits from it. The game can require a certain minimum range between blasting charge and colonist for remote ignition to work. Solar storms can influence radio contact, screwing up your plans when raiders advance.

In general, replacing "Hand of god" actions with colonist planning seems to me to have strong benefits to the storytelling aspect of the game. But you are of course right that it shouldn't take precedence to common sense in making the game.

[Galileus]

I completely disagree, while I do absolutely agree

The blasting charges scenario indeed is way better with no direct control from player. But it's not better because player does not have direct control - it's because of the consequences. It's because of risk presented in that scenario and simply way better challenge. It's a very subtle point, but crucial to my argumentation - it's not the lack of Hand of God mechanics that make that scenario better, but it's consequences.

Correlation does not imply causation. Or, if you prefer: it's an example of circular cause and consequence. What you've proven is that tension and risk improves gameplay AND that in this scenario lack of HoG mechanics leads to tension and risk. It does not prove, that lack of HoG mechanic improves gameplay.

Counter-argumentation: what if mines are only used as a mining tool, pun not intended? Does lack of HoG create tension and risk then? Nope. What if lamps would need to be turned off and on by colonists every single time? Does it improve gameplay? Nope. Does it make it insufferable to control larger power grids? Yup. Does it in effect hurt the gameplay? Yup. Does it basically makes any kind of control over large power grids impossible? Yup.

HoG mechanic is a design decision that needs to be applied where it is needed. It does not cheapens the gameplay flat all over the board - in fact, as just proven, it can severely improve it, allowing for more possibilities and better control. This is why I argue it should be decided upon case-by-case basis, what scheme of control is greater for each specific scenario.

[Cerberus]

You are right, those are good examples of when "Hand of god" actions contribute to gameplay. It would still seem though that any action that may have storytelling consequences would benefit from ordering colonists, rather than quickly resolving the issue by a click on a UI button. It seems that "Hand of god" actions are anemic to story.

what if mines are only used as a mining tool, pun not intended? Does lack of HoG create tension and risk then?

I think that the more work you offload to colonists, the more alive the story becomes. So no, not tension and risk, but story immersion. You could argue that making tasks too tedious for the player, or making tasks ill-designed for larger scale base operation will hamper gameplay too much, but I would retort that there is value in making mundane tasks a little difficult to add flavor. A story where colonists must avoid and plan for roof collapses is more interesting than a story where the player simply press a button to clear some space. Since a large portion of the game is base building, wouldn't we want to make that part of the game more organic as well?

But your point is well taken, favoring colonist planning is by no means the all-round solution that I made it out to be, and your examples clearly show this.

[Galileus]

Mines mining was indeed a terrible example, I didn't really though that one through To completely drag myself down - to mine with mining mines you need to construct them first anyway, so you probably want to set them off once they are complete to go on with another round... So non-direct control wouldn't really be a problem in this case. Good thing I hit home with that lamp example, I would have completely embarrassed myself otherwise ^^'

Anyhow, would you agree to reconsider you proposition as favouring non-direct control as long as it does not hinder gameplay in a major way? I could agree with something like that, it's a good thing to keep such a rule in mind. It might add some more work from time to time - like in the remote mines example. But your point is very solid with the mines too - it would indeed help immersion and challenge a lot, I would even say way more than you could expect for the amount of work needed. And this is especially precious example, as mines are right now a "I win button", and remote control by colonists makes this first, huge step in terms of balance. Mechanical balance no less - which is infinitely more valuable than just fixing numbers around.

[Cerberus]

Anyhow, would you agree to reconsider you proposition as favouring non-direct control as long as it does not hinder gameplay in a major way?

Agree. With this tempered suggestion, I hope the developer(s?) will consider it

[Untrustedlife]

This is a great idea in my opinion.

However Galileus makes an ok point as-well.

The remote mine example makes perfect sense, right now they are just a way of winning.I really do hope this game doesn't end up as a ...tower defense game.
That would ruin this game,
So much more potential as a dwarf fortress like management simulation in my opinion.

[Cerberus]

In line with the above discussion I would suggest the same could be done to trading:

It could add to the story-telling part of the game if the trade ship actually landed on the game map. With the way the game engine works, having moving land vehicles probably won't work, but a space craft or surface-to-space transport taking off and landing on a 4x9 outside area shouldn't be hard to do. It would be somewhat similar to the way escape pods work.

The pros of doing this is that it offers a meaningful way to trade resources, instead of now where the resources you sell magically disappear from your stock. It also plays well with the coming release where your stock is less ethereal ( RTS-style resource counter in the top of the screen ) and more physical - i.e. every piece of your stock has a physical presence in the game world. When a trader ship lands and the trade is carried out, the colonists will physically move pieces of stock from your stockpile area into the ship.

It also adds some excitement to the trade if your colonists have to deal with the trader directly. If every trade is carried out in person between a socially adept colonist and a trader, all sorts of interesting stories can happen.
- The trader may decide to double-cross you and turn the visit into a raid ( or indeed be raiders masquerading as a trader )
- You might do the same and rob the trader at gunpoint.
- A third party group of raiders may intervene, eying a change for both yours and the traders goods.
- Slave/prisoner revolt aboard the transport.
- Transport crashes, into base or elsewhere, spilling its goods