Rimworld: Another Excellent Game with the Ultimate Flaw.

[TheMeInTeam]

Funny enough, I *never* have a central "courtyard".  Your "universal use case" is not universal, that simple; many user-posted bases similarly do NOT share your design choice.  So much for "always, always".

You have either never played the game, or only played the game on the lowest difficulties while deliberately having a rule about not building your stockpile in a central and accessible location. Or you are lying to try and be contrary.

I know on which of these possibilities I would place my money.

Once you get going, mini-stockpiles everywhere is a better design. But early on, ruthless difficulty demands a stockpile in an optimal position in the centre of your base, if you plan to survive for more than a few days anyway.

A central courtyard stockpile is not always the most movement-efficient setup.  You want to stockpile weapons/armor where you are most likely to use them, same with food.  Rarely used stuff that takes up space should probably be stashed elsewhere (especially sell bait like art you're not putting in rooms, since once you stockpile it the stuff won't move again).  Medicine should definitely be on 1-2 tile stockpiles next to hospital beds, etc.

Of course, this doesn't change your point about movement efficiency and how it rules the game, just how the optimization works in practice.

One that I often don't know what to do with is building materials.  Centralizing it is nice for construction, but unlike most of your resources the AI raiders will never try to steal stone blocks and will almost never bother with targeting steel/wood stockpiles.  Keeping too much of this stuff in the base means expending more resources to build the surrounding structures, and at some point the movement cost for this exceeds the utility of bothering with the centralized storage...especially when you can just dump them under 1 block pillars with a roof somewhere roughly near the base without issue.

[mangalores]

There's a simple fix for this: change output results.

Nobody complains about movement being too important when tailoring parkas or crafting LMGs, because the time spent at work far exceeds the time walking around gathering materials.  Even with making bricks it's not too much of an issue.

It's simple enough to apply the same to food and drug manufacture.  Simply multiply the time and ingredients it takes to make them by 5, and simultaneously multiply the output by 5.  So your cook has to carry 50 units of food to the cook bench, spends a while there, and then pops out 5 meals.

There's probably a mod for this somewhere.

-------------------------[edit]------------

Hmmm, maybe this won't work so easily.  Increasing ingredients and product is easy.  But work is specified on the item itself.  If I specify the job output to be 5, is rimworld smart enough to multiply "<WorkToMake>" by 5 as well?

While more coding necessary imo it could be done via making materials necessary to be added in increments, instead before the work starts. E.g. if something needs 200 steel it might get chopped up in 20 steel increments for work so the pawn needs to retrieve 20 more steel for each 10% progress though I'm still not sure it would work that well because except for certain goods like food you really don't need scaled up mass production as you have to manage resource scarcity on the other end as well.

I think the main reason for stockpiles is the way weapons and apparel are non stackable. It's the main reason storage room gets sparse, not the raw materials per se (or your colony is so advanced and productive it doesn't have a problem to begin with).

Funny enough, I *never* have a central "courtyard".  Your "universal use case" is not universal, that simple; many user-posted bases similarly do NOT share your design choice.  So much for "always, always".

You have either never played the game, or only played the game on the lowest difficulties while deliberately having a rule about not building your stockpile in a central and accessible location. Or you are lying to try and be contrary.

I know on which of these possibilities I would place my money.

Once you get going, mini-stockpiles everywhere is a better design. But early on, ruthless difficulty demands a stockpile in an optimal position in the centre of your base, if you plan to survive for more than a few days anyway.

So the universal gameplay strategy everyone should do to play optimally is actually not the optimal gameplay strategy because you only need it for the first few days when your base isn't even up yet is what you are saying...

And I would can the ad hominems if I were you. Outside youtube comment sections they usually are not helpful to be taken seriously and that says mainly something about the level of quality of youtube comment sections.

[Edmon]

To all those saying that a central courtyard is not optimal in the early game, I want to ask you something.

Did you ever realise that it was optimal to just build stockpiles over the top of dropped resources at the start, with the materials you want to use to build starting in the top left corner and then rotating around? There are people out there who made videos of themselves doing this, actually building the ship and escaping before the colony even got named. Have you done this?

Did you realise that it's more optimal (skillset permitting) to kill a large animal further away  and either cut wood down there (trees permitting) or just take wood with you (put a single tile down and command the pawn the haul it as they go out to hunt). Then build a butcher table and fuel stove out there in the middle of nowhere? So that the goal is simply to return with meals and your middle of nowhere cooking stations are available for next time?

There are things you only realise when you are trying to push the limits of the game, rather than just enjoying a lazy sandboxing experience. The problem is, movement is so ruthlessly important that if you truly are excellent in minimizing it, stuff like escaping before the 5th day isn't just possible, it's easily possible.

But you only will come to realise this if you have the skillset to execute at that level of play, or you've watched videos of other people playing at that level.

The important point is, that even if you don't play to speed run or that's not your thing, improving the movement versus work balance is going to make your game more fun and feel less limiting.

You should be free to build a base that is reasonably realistic and for it to actually work. As it stands, that is not the case, unless you basically have hostile events turned off.

Which isn't great balance.

[Scrabbling]

Did you ever realise that it was optimal to just build stockpiles over the top of dropped resources at the start, with the materials you want to use to build starting in the top left corner and then rotating around?

So are you saying that this is optimal? Or are you saying players without central courtyard think this is optimal and you do not?

Did you realise that it's more optimal (skillset permitting) to kill a large animal further away  and either cut wood down there (trees permitting) or just take wood with you (put a single tile down and command the pawn the haul it as they go out to hunt). Then build a butcher table and fuel stove out there in the middle of nowhere? So that the goal is simply to return with meals and your middle of nowhere cooking stations are available for next time?

Again: Are you saying that this is optimal? Or are you saying players without central courtyard think this is optimal and you do not?

I am at a loss because the first "optimization" seems alright to me as early game solution while the second "optimization" just sound ludicrous.

[Edmon]

Both of these things are optimal in terms of Raw Resource > Product in the shortest time.

[TheMeInTeam]

Did you ever realise that it was optimal to just build stockpiles over the top of dropped resources at the start, with the materials you want to use to build starting in the top left corner and then rotating around? There are people out there who made videos of themselves doing this, actually building the ship and escaping before the colony even got named. Have you done this?

I'm not buying it.  No matter how fast you are, you're still gated on tech to launch the ship.  Even if you crank 4+ research benches, colonies are named in <1 year.

And that's before we talk about the uranium shortage.  Often in pre-18 patches I found that the inability to get uranium via deep drilling or trades was the *sole* bottleneck for launching a ship...even on tribal tech.  A18 added a lot of work for advanced components, but the bottleneck is still often uranium.

Absent the bug in A17 that allowed the colony to go un-named for extended periods, you'd need to start with BS resources to launch a ship in < 1 year.  In A18, the need to manufacture advanced components pushes this back further.  I'd love to see evidence of what you describe in B18 in an unmodified/QoL only game with starting resources.  I'd learn a lot, but for the moment I can't believe it.  Hell, if you could launch in 5 days building a stove would be pointless, you have enough starting meals to last that long as crashlanded.

The resources to do it aren't there, and no amount of movement optimization gives you day 3 deep drilling.

[Scrabbling]

Both of these things are optimal in terms of Raw Resource > Product in the shortest time.

Then the second one is terribly poor example to make your point because it has a lot of disadvantages and does not even achieve the primary goal of minimizing movement time.

Did you realise that it's more optimal (skillset permitting) to kill a large animal further away  and either cut wood down there (trees permitting) or just take wood with you (put a single tile down and command the pawn the haul it as they go out to hunt). Then build a butcher table and fuel stove out there in the middle of nowhere? So that the goal is simply to return with meals and your middle of nowhere cooking stations are available for next time?

First of all why it fails the goal:
Let's assume the large animal is a muffalo, thus yielding ~200 meat = 20 simple meals. So instead of hauling one dead animal corpse in one tour to your well set-up kitchen, you cook 20 meals out in the wild and haul 2 stacks of 10 meals each back to your base. And the leather if you don't wanna waste it. How is that an optimization?

Second all the disadvantages that come with it:
- No clean kitchen -> increases likeliness of food poisoning.
- A lot of micromanagement (not necessarily in this order): Build a 1-tile-wood-stockpile, order a pawn to haul wood there, order this pawn to hunt (or do it manually), wait for the hunt to succeed, stop this pawn from automatically hauling his prey, chop down at least one more tree, build a butcher table, create a butcher bill, order this pawn to butcher, get 80 steel from somewhere (how does this part reduce hauling?), build a fueled stove, fuel the stove (might need to cut another tree for that), create a cooking bill, order this pawn to cook, wait for the job to finish, order this pawn to haul the meals back.
- Even if you argue that the excessive micro listed above is only needed a few times (before your decentraliced "kitchens" are established) there are other issues down the line. If you want to optimize movement you have to make absolutely sure that you don't accidently leave open bills that make your pawns move across half the map to some "kitchen". You have to make sure you forbid leftover meat (stacks < 10) after cooking to avoid anyone hauling it. You have to make sure no one is taking a lengthy trip only to refuel the stoves...
- You only get simple meals this way. And especially on the "ruthless difficulties" you are talking about I would imagine the +5 mood boost from fine meals to be important.

Third the necessary preconditions:
- Your pawn must be capable of hunting, constructing, cooking and hauling for this to work.
- You must be on a map with a lot of trees everywhere.

So your "optimization" only works in a bubble where the product (meals) is the endpoint (and thus its transportation is irrelevant) and the byproduct (leather, left-over meat) is irrelevant. So it is not at all applicable to the game and the game does not incentivize you in any way to optimize in such a way as shown by the listed disadvantages. So what exactly is your point by bringing this example up? There is absolutely nothing to realize.

[Bozobub]

To all those saying that a central courtyard is not optimal in the early game, I want to ask you something.

You  fail miserably here.  Why?  Because a central courtyard IS NOT always optimal, depending on the item(s) stored.  Your lack of imagination limits no one else but you, that simple.

You're also going to have to show how you're "escaping by the 5th day", without using  the console or larding yourself with resources at game creation, because that's rather obvious bullshit.

Oh, by the by, I've played on *every* difficulty; snoot fail.  Perhaps if you upgraded your bullshit skills?

Considering your OP was rather pointless, what do you think you're on about, exactly?

[BoogieMan]

I kind of see where the OP is coming. But on the other hand, I don't seem to think it's quite as bad - at least in my experience.

I understand the pressure to make an efficient base over one that looks nice or is less tedious to build. The extent that effects the player is probably highly variable from one person to the next. But I firmly believe the more you see the positive effects and know how the achieve them, the harder they are to ignore. Having a very efficient layout for each workroom can lead to downright massive improvements in productivity. So much so that I can't really ignore the benefits. Although I feel I've learned to blend both their efficiency, aesthetics, and time investment fairly well over time. Then again, improving how I approach anything is something I experience quite a bit of enjoyment in refining as I play any game.

I think a large amount of this issue would be resolved with some improvements to the pathfinding AI, if A18 didn't already do so. I haven't played since A17. For example, I had pawns set to tame or hunt that seemed to completely disregard how long it would take to get out to where they needed to go. If the path was long and/or covered in snow and other movement obstructions they would stroll off even though they would have to go to bed or get hungry long before they could have ever arrived at their destination and end up wasting most of their day.

Lastly, the Hand Me That Brick mod should seriously be integrated into the main game. Don't play without it. I cannot stress that enough. It lets haulers deliver resources to constructions even if they can't or aren't the ones actively building it.

I suppose the game days could be slightly longer too. I guess my point is I believe this could be largely resolved by further improvements to the game.

Just like Dwarf Fortress, I personally consider hauling to be one of biggest annoyances in the game. Doubly so if you build a mountain base. Too many hauling jobs needs and not enough time or manpower. Stack limits are too small..

[Edmon]

I think it's time for Bozobub to have a conversation with himself. No literally.

You  fail miserably here.  Why?  Because a central courtyard IS NOT always optimal, depending on the item(s) stored.  Your lack of imagination limits no one else but you, that simple.

I've never tried to "win", even once.  I *like* sandboxes.

You're also going to have to show how you're "escaping by the 5th day", without using  the console or larding yourself with resources at game creation, because that's rather obvious bullshit.

Oh, by the by, I've played on *every* difficulty; snoot fail.  Perhaps if you upgraded your bullshit skills?

I've never tried to "win", even once.  I *like* sandboxes.

Thanks for clearing that up Bozobub, so do you agree that movement is the main issue with this game?

I personally think that similar QoL changes is what RimWorld needs most (well, OK, pathfinding, pathfinding, pathfinding, but BESIDES that ).  That also meshes well with going to a beta release, imo; I'd be willing to bet we start seeing a LOT of polish incoming =).

Ah, great.

Thanks buddy.

Anything else?

Your suggestion was obviously an attempt at humor =).

I felt it necessary to say something, before I heard the baying of hounds.  Let it go, people...

1.  That should be fully up to the individual player and already kind of is, via storyteller and difficulty settings.  I personally *never* go for the actual "win" scenario.

2.  See above.

Ok cool, so you never try to win, so you have no idea about what is optimal in many cases. That's totally fine.

You just wanted to have an argument in here because you think arguing the opposite for the sake of it is fun, even if you actually agree with me (and have said so in many other threads, at least in terms of pathfinding which of course is about making movement optimal).

[BoogieMan]

@Edmon

You're wasting your time.

In my experience, Bozobub is an antagonistic contrarian who misuses their intelligence and grammatical skills being sarcastic, insulting, and generally just going full effort to disagree with people and tell them their opinions are wrong in ways that are not constructive.

They are literally the only person I have ever ignored on any forum, ever, and I've been online since 2400 baud modems. A shame really, because I do enjoy reading posts by people who (usually) write so well.

Engaging this person will only waste your time and derail the thread. Better to just move on.

On topic, I don't use a centralized stockpile any more. Well, only for stuff that isn't needed at a workstation. Better to have a stockpile by/in each workroom with only the materials that workroom needs. The less time they spend going out and grabbing everything they need, the better and it gives you more freedom in base layout.

I'll make the main stockpile set on the second to highest priority, and make a few 1 tile stockpiles right next to the workstation's chair on max priority. They don't even have to move that way. Let haulers do the majority of the footwork instead of skilled crafters.

If you haven't, try the mod I linked above. It should help a lot with your issue.

[dburgdorf]

Edmon, the fact that Bozobub has said he never goes for the "'win' scenario" simply means he doesn't bother racing to build a spaceship and leave the planet. It doesn't mean that he hasn't played on the highest difficulty settings and it doesn't mean that he hasn't had to deal with the various challenges and threats the game throws at him.

Similarly, the fact that he (like most players) recognizes how wonky pawn pathfinding can be hardly means he agrees with your claim that pawn movement efficiency is an "ultimate flaw" that somehow dictates "one and only one" way to successfully play the game.

But, then, I'm not surprised you don't get that. In three weeks, you've really demonstrated no ability (or desire) to understand what others have to say. You've done nothing in this thread but repeat yourself over and over. Others have explained in detail why your "only viable strategy" really isn't the only option, and why the "ultimate flaw" you're complaining about is really not an "ultimate" flaw at all, and your response has been to accuse them of "lying" about their play style and experience because that experience contradicts your claims or runs counter to your assumptions.

You might want to try actually listening for a change.

[Edmon]

Edmon, the fact that Bozobub has said he never goes for the "'win' scenario" simply means he doesn't bother racing to build a spaceship and leave the planet. It doesn't mean that he hasn't played on the highest difficulty settings and it doesn't mean that he hasn't had to deal with the various challenges and threats the game throws at him.

Similarly, the fact that he (like most players) recognizes how wonky pawn pathfinding can be hardly means he agrees with your claim that pawn movement efficiency is an "ultimate flaw" that somehow dictates "one and only one" way to successfully play the game.

But, then, I'm not surprised you don't get that. In three weeks, you've really demonstrated no ability (or desire) to understand what others have to say. You've done nothing in this thread but repeat yourself over and over. Others have explained in detail why your "only viable strategy" really isn't the only option, and why the "ultimate flaw" you're complaining about is really not an "ultimate" flaw at all, and your response has been to accuse them of "lying" about their play style and experience because that experience contradicts your claims or runs counter to your assumptions.

You might want to try actually listening for a change.

I am telling you that the quickest way to get 2, is to add 1 + 1 together and most of the counter arguments in this thread is that you don't have to do that, you could take 4, add 6 and then remove 8 to get 2.

And that's correct and all well and good, but it IS NOT OPTIMAL.

Movement minimizations centric designs are extremely optimal in Rimworld, as to the point of being all consuming. If optimization is your objective, this game is incredibly one-dimentional. unlike say, factorio, in which optimization can be a deep and massively complex thing.

The fact that he has discovered path finding can be wonky is not just an admittance that movement can be critically important at times.

It also tells me he does not or has not got the skill or foresight to minimize movement in the first place in the confines of the simplistic path finding to prevent path finding from ever being an issue in the first place.

Successfully playing the game and playing the game optimally are two completely different things and you should not mix the two.

Let me make it clear why many of the people in this thread are simply burning a strawman in simple terms:

I am talking about there only being one viable strategy if you want to be optimal.
They are talking about there being other strategies, if you want to be [X]. Where X =(successful, survive, have fun, insert target goal that isn't what I said here that fits their argument and isn't optimization).

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm still interested in how the math allows movement optimization to do a < 1 year launch, even under theoretical perfect movement micromanagement.

[Bozobub]

*silliness*

Instant fail, nitwit.

Back up your bullshit, and tell us all how you left the planet in 5 days.  Well?  And as noted above, no the game is not somehow magically easier, simply because I don't care about the spaceship, EXCEPT the fact that I don't have to gather uranium the same way or use caravans, unless I really want to.

All your armwaving has failed to disguise the simple fact that you're not just incorrect, but an active liar.  Whether or not you accept this, unless you show otherwise, that assessment is NOT going to change.

@BoogieMan:  Funny, how YOU also don't follow OP's "rule", that a central courtyard stockpile is always optimal; hmmm...  It's almost like you're relying on ad hominem, or something.  Gosh.  Nor do I feel obliged to be polite to someone who is being massively rude, which is *exactly* why we clashed in the past, I'll note.