Alpha 13 - New events are gonna be hilarious

[Bob_Namg]

Triggering?

No, get out of here mate.

[RickyMartini]

Ayy lmao, can't wait to see how this discussion goes on when it gets on Steam and the community doubles.

[mumblemumble]

Triggering?

No, get out of here mate.

Never said i agreed with such a policy,  but such people do exist,  and are also in rimworld communities,  like folks suggesting transgender colonists (not kidding,  I've seen this) .... Like a colony would risk surgery on perfectly physically healthy people , silver every month for hormones,  and huge risks to social structure just because one person wasn't comfortable with their body,  ontop of then very volatile mentality during the "change" .  Certainly would never happen in most colonies struggling to survive,  and frankly id think such people would have better priorities,  like not becoming warg meat, or mechanoid target practice.

But again, just my opinion, and I've already covered this and more in this very thread.

[porcupine]

Ok, so what we've learned from this thread is everybody's hyped up over a feature that's taken one hour to implement, and most of the discussed interactions won't happen (because that'd be stupid/too complicated/whatever).

Lets get back to adding some end-game content here.  I found some of the mods really drew out the gameplay, making the tech tree longer essentially, requiring refining of resources, etc.

As it stands now, you've got end-game within a couple of hours on a colony (as far as useful tech is concerned), and nothing to really do at that point except ... sit, and draw out the game, and expand your colony with no driving force/purpose.

[Bob_Namg]

Ok, so what we've learned from this thread is everybody's hyped up over a feature that's taken one hour to implement, and most of the discussed interactions won't happen (because that'd be stupid/too complicated/whatever).

Lets get back to adding some end-game content here.  I found some of the mods really drew out the gameplay, making the tech tree longer essentially, requiring refining of resources, etc.

As it stands now, you've got end-game within a couple of hours on a colony (as far as useful tech is concerned), and nothing to really do at that point except ... sit, and draw out the game, and expand your colony with no driving force/purpose.

Ghetto water mechanics?

[StorymasterQ]

I leave for three days and Tynan gave me a long post that is filled with quotes I'm going to add to my list of Rimworld quotes.

This is great! My signature is being kept relevant by Tynan Himself!

[Tynan]

Ok, so what we've learned from this thread is everybody's hyped up over a feature that's taken one hour to implement, and most of the discussed interactions won't happen (because that'd be stupid/too complicated/whatever).

Lets get back to adding some end-game content here.  I found some of the mods really drew out the gameplay, making the tech tree longer essentially, requiring refining of resources, etc.

As it stands now, you've got end-game within a couple of hours on a colony (as far as useful tech is concerned), and nothing to really do at that point except ... sit, and draw out the game, and expand your colony with no driving force/purpose.

There are definitely  more things to research and build, so the end-game will  take longer to get to.

But just in general, I don't think the "make the game longer by adding more content to consume" linear model is the right one for RW. It's not really a content consumption game. I prefer to think of it more like adding more aspects and possibilities to a system, which can generate more outcomes and create interest over time. Which is related to content consumption, but is quite different because it imagines the content->outcome relationship as nonlinear instead of linear.

I'm hoping things like relationships will actually add a lot more endgame, just because the game will have more things to generate stories about and will generate more stories long-term that way.

The ideal end-game of the design is for the game to become eternally interesting, with no relation to things like how many research projects there are. It shouldn't be a string of content you eat until you're done, but rather a system you immerse yourself in, that cycles through beginnings and endings essentially without limit (possibly across multiple playthroughs). I don't think we're really there, but that's just the theoretical perfect target I'm chasing.

[EarthyTurtle]

I'm hoping things like relationships will actually add a lot more endgame, just because the game will have more things to generate stories about and will generate more stories long-term that way.

The ideal end-game of the design is for the game to become eternally interesting, with no relation to things like how many research projects there are. It shouldn't be a string of content you eat until you're done, but rather a system you immerse yourself in, that cycles through beginnings and endings essentially without limit (possibly across multiple playthroughs). I don't think we're really there, but that's just the theoretical perfect target I'm chasing.

I'm drooling 

Question for the Ty-meister, in relation to that end game module of endless play-ability. Do you think that end games could potentially end up with an option to continue on another storyline?

Alright examples are best to explain this. Say you are successful in launching a ship and you get 8 colonists off the ground. Do you think there could be an option to follow them to the next 'randomly generated' world? Where they begin over on a new planet (or the same planet, might be a random event they get shot down again on another part of the world).

Or perhaps once your colony get destroyed and the ruins of your once thriving colony is now deserted, the random event for a wanderer to join could be changed to a small band of refugee from a town come to settle? Effectively reseting some of the difficulty level to match the new wanderers joining, allowing them to choose a new name if they want and sort of forging a new story in itself? Like the next chapter to the saga.

Idk I thought I might ask if that's the direction your taking coz it's been itching at me for months now xD. Regardless of which I'm still foaming for this new update and a complete game down the track.

[jzero]

Ayy lmao, can't wait to see how this discussion goes on when it gets on Steam and the community doubles.

Oh man when the Steam peeps get on here stuff will get real interesting.

[Boston]

Several important things to realize about relationships, pregnancy, and child-rearing.

1) In almost all cultures worldwide, up until about the 1900s or so (and continuing in the more..... "rural" parts of the world today), people lived CRAMMED together.

Whole families would live in one-room houses, multiple related-families in houses next-door, and so on and so forth. Many tribal groups lived in "longhouses", where each family got a little compartment of the whole. "Privacy" was at a premium, and a luxury. Relatedly, in many places, children were reared communally. Not to say that they wouldn't know who their parents were, nor not live with them, but the whole community banded together to raise them, teach them skills, and keep them safe.

2) Child mortality was really, really, REALLY high.

That old chestnut about "-X- people only had an average life expectancy of 30 years!!!!!" is a little more complicated than it appears. Basically, the average "life span" (which is what most people think about when they hear "life expectancy") has been roughly the same for the entirety of human existance: between 50-70 years. "Life expectancy" is actually an average of how long people tend to live. Most adults from the Stone Ages to the 1900s, barring death from war/accident/disease, could reasonably expect to see 50. That "life expectancy" number tends to be so low due to the absurdly high level of infant mortality that has been the norm for most of human existence. Barring modern "Western" methods of childbirth and medicine, most children do not survive, either birth or the first few years of life. Same with mothers. Up until the 1950s or so, childbirth was a very  dangerous time for the mother. Many mothers bled to death after giving birth.

This level of child mortality is one of the reasons "ancient", and even rural families in the modern world, have so many goddamn kids. You need to have a lot in order to have a a decent number survive to adulthood. It was for this reason that "adulthood" was assumed at a much lower age in ancient times than it was today. In Colonial America, you were considered an adult at 15-16, and could be expected to marry and serve in the militia at that age.

3) Large families are preferred.

Another reason for "ancient" and rural families to have large groups of children is simple: more hands make for light work. Contrary to popular opinion on this forum, children aren't "useless" for the first 15 years of life. Even young children can be given chores (cleaning, gathering firewood, milking animals, etc), and could/would lessen the workload on adult members of the group. Hell, in Classical Greece, children as young as 3-4 were taught how to spin thread for weaving.

So, what does this mean for Rimworld?

- "Having children" would be a serious investiture of time and resources. Humans are one of the few species on the planet that spend so much time in adolescence. Most animals become "adults" after 1 year or so. This long adolescence lets humans pass on skills, as well as give their offspring the best chances for survival. However, you actually have to raise the kid for that long! On the other hand, children would be able to accomplish different jobs, based on age.

-Barring "Glitterworld" medicine and well-kept hospital faculties, "mortality", both among mothers, newborns and young children, should be relatively high. You would want to keep expecting mothers well-fed, warm, and well-rested. Newborns and young children tend to have depressed immune systems, so they would be more susceptible to disease until they grow up some. Keeping them inside and keeping your living facilities clean would minimize this

-"Childhood" would be relatively short. "Childhood" meaning the time when the children have no responsibilities. I think that the "life stages" from animals could be used with a little modification.
1- Newborn: basically, a prop in the parents room/living space. 0- 12 months
2- Child: like "animal juveniles". Can be given minor tasks (not fighting), like cleaning or hauling (at reduced rates compared to adults), or be taught skills by adult members. 1 year - 10 years.
3- Juvenile: Teenagers, basically. Can do everything adults can do (including fighting), at slightly reduced rates/efficiency. Can also be taught skills, just like children. 10 years -14 years.
4- Adult. 14+. I have had 14 year-old-raiders in my games.

It is important to note that in the "real world", especially in the Colonial times, a colony wasn't considered "permanent" until there were established families, and children were born. The King of France paid unmarried women to travel to New France (Canada) in order to marry the unmarried men and increase the population and permanency of the colony.

[JimmyAgnt007]

@Boston

Most of that is accurate though id argue that giving birth isnt quite as bad as you say.  If it were then most women wouldnt survive to produce so many children.  That being said, when things go wrong, there wasnt much anyone could do about it until recently.

Next Id ague that the useful child phase would be a bit older than 1 year.  Maybe 2 at the earliest.  A toddler phase where they just do joy activities or follow a parent might be best for years 1-4 where they might pick up their skill passions for later in life. 

[porcupine]

Ok, so what we've learned from this thread is everybody's hyped up over a feature that's taken one hour to implement, and most of the discussed interactions won't happen (because that'd be stupid/too complicated/whatever).

Lets get back to adding some end-game content here.  I found some of the mods really drew out the gameplay, making the tech tree longer essentially, requiring refining of resources, etc.

As it stands now, you've got end-game within a couple of hours on a colony (as far as useful tech is concerned), and nothing to really do at that point except ... sit, and draw out the game, and expand your colony with no driving force/purpose.

There are definitely  more things to research and build, so the end-game will  take longer to get to.

But just in general, I don't think the "make the game longer by adding more content to consume" linear model is the right one for RW. It's not really a content consumption game. I prefer to think of it more like adding more aspects and possibilities to a system, which can generate more outcomes and create interest over time. Which is related to content consumption, but is quite different because it imagines the content->outcome relationship as nonlinear instead of linear.

I'm hoping things like relationships will actually add a lot more endgame, just because the game will have more things to generate stories about and will generate more stories long-term that way.

The ideal end-game of the design is for the game to become eternally interesting, with no relation to things like how many research projects there are. It shouldn't be a string of content you eat until you're done, but rather a system you immerse yourself in, that cycles through beginnings and endings essentially without limit (possibly across multiple playthroughs). I don't think we're really there, but that's just the theoretical perfect target I'm chasing.

Sure, but what I'm saying is, after the first play through or two, not much changes.  I've played from the first Alpha I think, and I've certainly put in tons of RW time, but I skipped a few of the last Alpha's (waited almost a year), and when I came back, it didn't feel like much had changed in terms of how the game rolled out. 

Sure, some stuff needed research, that I could swear did not before.  Raids became more reasonable.  Plasteel became important to build a ship, etc., but aside from interacting with a few new animals and trying to train them, there wasn't much to do that felt new.  It was like I hadn't missed much at all.  There were no new challenges.

[Maxuli]

Triggering?

No, get out of here mate.

Never said i agreed with such a policy,  but such people do exist,  and are also in rimworld communities,  like folks suggesting transgender colonists (not kidding,  I've seen this) .... Like a colony would risk surgery on perfectly physically healthy people , silver every month for hormones,  and huge risks to social structure just because one person wasn't comfortable with their body,  ontop of then very volatile mentality during the "change" .  Certainly would never happen in most colonies struggling to survive,  and frankly id think such people would have better priorities,  like not becoming warg meat, or mechanoid target practice.

But again, just my opinion, and I've already covered this and more in this very thread.

Being transgender is more than just hormone treatments, or "changes". Not everyone takes any sort of hormone (not everyone gets them), not everyone goes into any surgery at all. This reasoning that the game shouldn't have transgender people "because it's expensive and difficult for colonies to support them" is asinine, and a misunderstanding of what being transgender is.

But I wouldn't put anything past a forum where saying that The Thing was good because it had no women in it is somehow acceptable.

[mumblemumble]

If you mean perhaps hermaphrodites whom are literally born a certain way,  then yes. Though those are hermaphrodites,  not transgender.

As for alternatives,  a bit unsure what else you can mean.... Unless you mean perhaps those who consider themselves  "just"  more fem or butch,  but id call that a personality quirk,  not necessarily full blown transgender. So if you want to explain how im wrong instead of just SAYING im wrong,  go right ahead.  Otherwise I'm inclined to not believe you, if you don't explain yourself.

Also,  not sure about the "no women thing"  i never said that,  and realize women are capable,  but protected in life,  since they are valuable compared to men. (childbearing,  pleasant company,  slightly more vulnerable health wise,  ect)  and fyi,  women in rimworld can do whatever men can, as far as I'm aware. (Though a bellcurve for strength / dexterity between genders would be cool.)

[JimmyAgnt007]

I think Tynan is making the right call.  Looking at what CK2 does and just putting it in because it exists.  Gay people are a thing, so they are in.  The dark horrible stuff that can happen because he simply includes a feature doesnt mean the feature should be avoided.  Kids happen, so they should be put in. (Eventually) What we do with them and the terrible things that can happen are just a part of that.  If you want to have a colony where all you do is eat children and gay people... well thats your call... but Tynan shouldnt avoid those bits to the game just because thats what someone wants to do. 

As for what he said about the End Game, some games dont have an end game and thats the point.  SimCity (Skylines now) was a good game because there was never an end.  DF doesnt have an end, you can keep sending dwarfs to reclaim the same hold over and over.  its not COD giving a 'story' that you try to get too the end of ASAP, its about giving you a place to tell a story.  one that has as much depth as possible. (while still being fun)  My colony in A12 is almost 20years old.  i could have had a whole new generation by now.  Once RW is totally finished I could play endlessly and always find the fun in telling a story and never knowing how its going to end.