Ludeon Forums

The current problem with trade is that you only have one option: Space trade.  The problem with this is that it requires a beacon, and that beacon must not be covered by a roof, which means that anything made available for space trade is automatically, by default, left outdoors.

This wasn't a problem long ago before item decay was added to the game, but now everything left outdoors that isn't raw stone or metal slowly rots away.  Not only does this make it less useful, but it also rapidly wrecks any trade value it might have.

The easiest solution would be to add caravan based trade synchronized with the random passing villager spawns.  Next would be to link caravan trade to zones, as opposed to the beacon.  By linking to zones you could allow trade from indoor locations (including refrigerated areas), which would open up the possibility of actually being able to export things like food, medicine, and crafted goods without worrying about them all rotting away to nothing while waiting for the right spaceship to come along.

As a gamer who grew up thinking my Intellivision was better than your Atari I have to admit its rare for a game to capture my imagination and time the way RimWorld has - even in its current state I think it is better than many other released games I have Kickstarted/Early Access backed.  Of all the things I like to suggest in the forums I think trade is the only one that needs significant changes for all the reasons you mentioned.  But most of all for...


"Hey guys my spaceship blew up and I managed to cobble together a radio using Gilligan's Island technology to contact you in SPACE but yeah... as much as I could use a new pair of your Calvin Klein hyperweave underwear to replace the ones I totally soiled in the crash in exchange for my silver and gold - can you swing by and pick me up instead? :o 

Quote from: ja7833 on March 16, 2015, 09:05:49 PM

"Hey guys my spaceship blew up and I managed to cobble together a radio using Gilligan's Island technology to contact you in SPACE but yeah... as much as I could use a new pair of your Calvin Klein hyperweave underwear to replace the ones I totally soiled in the crash in exchange for my silver and gold - can you swing by and pick me up instead? :o 

Don't worry, soon you will be presented a number of half-assed excuses for this obviously blatantly plothole...Ah, the things we ignore out of love   ::)

Regarding the topic: Yep, the whole trading could use some work. We already have trading caravans from mods, but since the orbital beacon is so hardcoded it makes the whole deal wonky. Anyway, its just a couple of patches before its introduced in vanilla is my guess.

I haven't thought much about it really but just from a glancing thought: Orbital beacons are just for allowing communication, everything can be stored anywhere but stuff sold is then hauled on demand to some orbital launching station or a special stockpile to be beamed up (whatever it is how it works in lore).

Low priority stuff is taken first, then perhaps nearest stockiples and high priority piles are forbidden to have its valuables hauled.

Does it create extra effort? Sure, but only barely, and its fun to watch your minion- err, i mean, pawns, work.

It's not really a plothole. It's simply a question of: Where would you go?

It's nice to assume that a Glitterworld is right around the corner or something, but we know that explicitly is not the case.

If a trader picked you up for hitchhiking, that's either ALOT of food you'll be consuming on the trip, or alot of power/trust you're giving to some random guy whose mercy you'll be at when in cryosleep (and given how many random cryosleep pods you find littered around, it doesn't sound like it's a good idea).

Building your own ship is pretty much the most reliable means of getting to where you want to go.

Go anywhere but a raider-mech-tribal-disease infested planet?

C'mon man, these are the sort of excuses i was talking about, at the very least it's stretching plausibility VERY VERY thin. So, the trip is expensive? Buy it. In just a couple of years its possible to turn from a ragged group to a filthy wealth planetary enterprise. The ticket is VERY expensive? Well, then one must wonder why they are trading for potatoes instead of hauling people around for huge sums. Ok, but its really expensive because - mambo jambo. Alright, make it a endgame goal, amass X wealth to buy off out of the planet. Give it any excuse of reasoning, but after trader visit #159 you start to wonder what kind of sick twisted show someone put you into. Why is a Rimworld so busy anyway?

Is it dangerous to pick a interplanetary ride? Yes, but so is getting lost in a hostile planet. I'd take a lift over taking my chances in a lost planet any minute.

Quote from: NephilimNexus on March 16, 2015, 06:45:17 PM
The current problem with trade is that you only have one option: Space trade.  The problem with this is that it requires a beacon, and that beacon must not be covered by a roof, which means that anything made available for space trade is automatically, by default, left outdoors.

This wasn't a problem long ago before item decay was added to the game, but now everything left outdoors that isn't raw stone or metal slowly rots away.  Not only does this make it less useful, but it also rapidly wrecks any trade value it might have.

The easiest solution would be to add caravan based trade synchronized with the random passing villager spawns.  Next would be to link caravan trade to zones, as opposed to the beacon.  By linking to zones you could allow trade from indoor locations (including refrigerated areas), which would open up the possibility of actually being able to export things like food, medicine, and crafted goods without worrying about them all rotting away to nothing while waiting for the right spaceship to come along.

You can now trade with roofs. Just put a beacon next to ANY stockpile and drops will be in unroofed areas near the beacon. But you don't need to have the beacon in an unroofed place now.

Well, seems a sloppy yet effective solution?

Quote from: Johnny Masters on March 16, 2015, 10:38:46 PMGo anywhere but a raider-mech-tribal-disease infested planet?

i.e. All of them?

Just buy the trip? Sure. With what money? The time and cost of covering intergalactic taxi rides would conceivably dwarf just building your own ship. It doesn't exactly need a whole lot to fly.

QuoteWell, then one must wonder why they are trading for potatoes instead of hauling people around for huge sums.

Economics 101 would answer why a lucrative niche service would have a very limited demand.

QuoteOk, but its really expensive because - mambo jambo.

Hitchhikers don't see great success in the most affluent western societies in the modern era, where the cost of helping is next to nothing; and you think trekking random colonists across lightyear distances for very-not-next-to-nothing costs is unrealistic?

Okay.

QuoteWhy is a Rimworld so busy anyway?

It's not busy. Nobody is landing or going out of their way to visit. You are building a relay and flagging down people you can see with it.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 16, 2015, 11:07:20 PM
i.e. All of them?

Just buy the trip? Sure. With what money? The time and cost of covering intergalactic taxi rides would conceivably dwarf just building your own ship. It doesn't exactly need a whole lot to fly.

You're assuming they're all like this. You know it may very well be not the case.

Buy with the game currency, silver?

Again you're assuming things, this time the price of a passage in a trading ship. It's cheaper to catch a ride than build a vehicle, anytime, anywhere. Sure, the one giving the ride might want a profit, but it's not because a few people will suddenly drain the vehicles resources to a halt, specially if we can argue that they can be put to cryosleep.

Just because the game makes it very easy to build a spaceship and fly it out, doesn't mean it makes sense or that catching a ride wouldn't make sense.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 16, 2015, 11:07:20 PM
Economics 101 would answer why a lucrative niche service would have a very limited demand.

My economics is very basic, but i'd say that if there's someone willing to buy it then there's someone willing to sell it, or am i wrong?
I want to buy tickets off this planet. You don't sell it? Well, pass the word around and someone is probably bound to come.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 16, 2015, 11:07:20 PM
Hitchhikers don't see great success in the most affluent western societies in the modern era, where the cost of helping is next to nothing; and you think trekking random colonists across lightyear distances for very-not-next-to-nothing costs is unrealistic?

Okay.

The analogy is wrong. Getting shipwrecked in a planet in rimworld is/should be akin to getting shipwrecked in a island in earthworld. Just like vessels are bound by law to render assistance, such space could very well have similar laws in the future. Of course, that would make a short game, but you see then that it's not the idea that getting rescued is far-fetched, its just that we have a gameish balance to have access to traders and still be stranded. Reason all you want, but it all boils down to this.

So, rescuing IS possible, it might be the case that such ships are not bound by law or they don't care about law. But if they care about money and you have money and the price of passage isn't such a unthinkable sum - which is your assumption - then we could have a ticket out.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 16, 2015, 11:07:20 PM
It's not busy. Nobody is landing or going out of their way to visit. You are building a relay and flagging down people you can see with it.

It's VERY busy. You see a trader very regularly, you see the same company traders very regularly. You see people and raiders very regularly. It is a busy planet.

Does it matter if they come specifically for you or not? They pass in orbit or close to orbit and they come often. That is busy for me. Mileage may vary?


Look, i feel like we could exchange sharps and fancy words all day, but i don't see how, in currently written lore, why you wouldn't be offered a ticket out (besides game-balance related reasons). Let's agree to disagree.

I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that Tynan considers planet/land-based trading preferable to space trading; it just takes a lot more to implement, hence space trading.

That being said, whether or not the price of passage would be an unthinkable sum is an assumption either way. If we say it is, that's an assumption. If we say it isn't, that's an assumption too. We just don't know, and since we're not even sure that space trading will stay in the game in the long run, I don't think it's worth getting worked up over.

Quote from: Johnny Masters on March 16, 2015, 11:38:31 PM
You're assuming they're all like this. You know it may very well be not the case.

It's not assuming all are like this. Alot of them simply are, as described in the primer. This, versus assuming that rarer Glitterworlds are easily accessible across the street, which is.. just a little bit of a stretch. Just a little bit.

QuoteAgain you're assuming things, this time the price of a passage in a trading ship. It's cheaper to catch a ride than build a vehicle, anytime, anywhere.

There is an entire conversation to be had on all the ways you'd be wrong. Being picky about assumptions is an axe with a backbite on this one.

Quote
Sure, the one giving the ride might want a profit, but it's not because a few people will suddenly drain the vehicles resources to a halt, specially if we can argue that they can be put to cryosleep.

Yeah and end up like the countless abandoned cryosleep pods found abandoned on every other rimworld, as previously mentioned. Have fun with that.

Quote
Just because the game makes it very easy to build a spaceship and fly it out, doesn't mean it makes sense or that catching a ride wouldn't make sense.

Never any kind words for these kinds of statements  ;D

Quote
My economics is very basic, but i'd say that if there's someone willing to buy it then there's someone willing to sell it, or am i wrong?
I want to buy tickets off this planet. You don't sell it? Well, pass the word around and someone is probably bound to come.

It's not that it's false, it's just more of a non-sequitir. That is, you aren't really addressing the problem of why you're wrong. Would need another topic on this if we really need to cover basics.

QuoteThe analogy is wrong. Getting shipwrecked in a planet in rimworld is/should be akin to getting shipwrecked in a island in earthworld.

More like being stranded somewhere in a 3rd world country. Which doesn't help the case you're trying to make. Nobody is required to help you leave, most probably don't even know you're there, and yes, you are much better off getting the hell out on your own than crying for help until something maybe happens.

You don't seem to understand what the world is really like outside of affluence.

QuoteSo, rescuing IS possible, it might be the case that such ships are not bound by law or they don't care about law.

Or there is no law, much less an authority to enforce it. That's not a small problem for your argument.

QuoteBut if they care about money and you have money..

They will probably take your money. You'll be lucky if anyone knows or cares.

QuoteIt's VERY busy. You see a trader very regularly, you see the same company traders very regularly. You see people and raiders very regularly. It is a busy planet.

4-5 communities and traders that stop in the solar region (in comms range =/= in orbit) about once a month isn't busy on a rustic town scale, much less a planet scale. There's no mileage to vary on this.

Quote
Look, i feel like we could exchange sharps and fancy words all day, but i don't see how, in currently written lore, why you wouldn't be offered a ticket out (besides game-balance related reasons). Let's agree to disagree.

That's sort of the thing. There's alot you don't know, from basic economics, geography, astronomy/physics, to basically how things work outside of affluent societies, to arguably some of the game lore that's in the very easy to read primer.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't call it a qualified one.

User was warned for this post

See? Now you just crossed the line from being opinionated, which i respect, to being an outright passive-aggressive snobbish. Your text is so filled with low-esteemed fallacies that I'd have to spend a time you don't deserve so i could point them all out. Is the thought of someone disagreeing with you so poignant to your insecurities?

Quote
It's not assuming all are like this. Alot of them simply are, as described in the primer. This, versus assuming that rarer Glitterworlds are easily accessible across the street, which is.. just a little bit of a stretch. Just a little bit.

I said not all are like this, you said not all are like this. Tometo, tomato.
You're the one saying Glitterworlds, i never mentioned glitterworlds. Besides assuming things you like to twist other people's words, eh?

Quote
There is an entire conversation to be had on all the ways you'd be wrong. Being picky about assumptions is an axe with a backbite on this one.

Veiled threats. Empty words.

QuoteYeah and end up like the countless abandoned cryosleep pods found abandoned on every other rimworld, as previously mentioned. Have fun with that.

Do you know why the pods are there? Why they were abandoned? Oh oh, i know! You are assuming things based on your point of view!

QuoteNever any kind words for these kinds of statements

Veiled insult. Empty words.

QuoteIt's not that it's false, it's just more of a non-sequitir. That is, you aren't really addressing the problem of why you're wrong. Would need another topic on this if we really need to cover basics.

See that fallacy there? You WANT me to be wrong, you're undermining my statements with a silly authoritative speech based on a shallow piece of fragment boasting. I'm not addressing the problem why i'm wrong because i'm not wrong, you assumed things based on a very incomplete lore of a scifi game and i assumed back.

QuoteMore like being stranded somewhere in a 3rd world country. Which doesn't help the case you're trying to make. Nobody is required to help you leave, most probably don't even know you're there, and yes, you are much better off getting the hell out on your own than crying for help until something maybe happens.

You don't seem to understand what the world is really like outside of affluence.

More assumptions. More condescending insults.

QuoteOr there is no law, much less an authority to enforce it. That's not a small problem for your argument.

Which i foreshadowed and said it myself.

QuoteThey will probably take your money. You'll be lucky if anyone knows or cares.

More assumptions.

Quote4-5 communities and traders that stop in the solar region (in comms range =/= in orbit) about once a month isn't busy on a rustic town scale, much less a planet scale. There's no mileage to vary on this.

Sounds like very busy taking in account they are in a rim planet. Also the hundreds of locals and several factions make it pretty busy as well. The mileage already varied, you think that current trading frequency is not busy and i happen to think they are, there's no arguing there, to each his own.

QuoteThat's sort of the thing. There's alot you don't know, from basic economics, geography, astronomy/physics, to basically how things work outside of affluent societies, to arguably some of the game lore that's in the very easy to read primer.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't call it a qualified one.

What can i say? A quirky riposte? More veiled threats in response in an eternal senseless bickering? You're obvious a troll so I and everyone reading this should treat you as such. There's no more discussing to be done with you because you're only interested in hearing your own echo. Don't bother with a detailed response, although i will understand your ego needing the last word.

Quote from: SSS on March 17, 2015, 12:24:32 AM
I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that Tynan considers planet/land-based trading preferable to space trading; it just takes a lot more to implement, hence space trading.

That being said, whether or not the price of passage would be an unthinkable sum is an assumption either way. If we say it is, that's an assumption. If we say it isn't, that's an assumption too. We just don't know, and since we're not even sure that space trading will stay in the game in the long run, I don't think it's worth getting worked up over.

Now, that's a sensible remark. It is a waste of effort if everything could change in a couple of alphas.

Discontinue the personal criticism.

If your message is about another poster instead of about the topic, don't post it.

Indeed. You guys can be diplomatic and constructive. Make it so.

The discussion is heating up, let's defuse it around I hope the common question :

- How can we justify the actual trade system with as little change as possible to make it 'fit' better in Rimworld ?

Myself I see a these roads to rationalize it.
1) They are automated cargo ship passing by planet to refuel (just so you know, water can be used to make space-fuel, and if you have good lift-off capability there's incentive to use planetary resources instead of ice asteroid)
why do they trade ? automated subroutine (they are cheating us out with their prices)
why don't they pick-up people ? no cryptopod and AI aren't legally obligated to render assistance.

Alternatively a manned spaceship isn't obligated to rescue people if they have no cryptopod free. (it could be an events), let's also remember that SLAVE TRADER are a thing in this universe.

2) They would actually be ...local non-interstellar trader, or even on the planet.
They could be a faction that have achieve what you want to achieve : get wealthy enough to have surplus or manufacture their own comfort.
However I have no reasons as to why we couldn't call them as we need them and saying they "didn't reach Interstellar-Ship" tech-level would ask for it to be way harder for us. (though it is implied to be a dangerous bet for us)

3) Last solution would be to trade with the other faction on the planet
But I see no reason they wouldn't hoard everything they can like glitterworld medecine.

They don't need to be interstellar. Interplanetary, perhaps. Traders arrive, on average, about once a month or longer. At sub-FTL speeds, that's enough to circuit planets in a system, even a particularly large one.

That's barely enough to establish that trade exists. Especially as things trend toward infrequent in late game.

Trading with other factions would be great. I wouldn't expect GW medicine carried by a trader that isn't well armed/protected, though, but it would be nice if a smaller list of items was available with each faction visit.

Note : FTL = Faster than light, the word you seed is STL (Slower than Light)

Anyway, thinking about it Rimworld do not have/need that level of hard-SF, but if you had another civilized planet in the same star system the "spaceship end" shouldn't be as evolved as it is described to be.
You don't need an anti-matter core for interplanetary travel, a 'crude' fission drive is enough.
I would also say that 2 inhabitable planets in the same system is also improbable but that's actually as probable as having a inhabitable/terraformed planet with terran animals in the first place.

In retrospect... maybe just giving access or explaining how raider/trader(land-based) get their intercontinental "drop pod". We need a logic amongst not-too-soft-SF convention.

Aside, I've been on ProjectRho (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php) for too long.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 17, 2015, 07:22:44 PM
I would also say that 2 inhabitable planets in the same system is also improbable but that's actually as probable as having a inhabitable/terraformed planet with terran animals in the first place.

Inhabitable =/= 'earth like'.

Mars is inhabitable. Jupiter has several inhabitable moons. Could arguably inhabit Saturn's ring structure with a little innovation. The environments aren't the real obstacle to these places so much as distance.

I think a more interesting notion is that the colonists aren't the first to land on these worlds. There is alot that alludes to a history of these Rimworlds leading back ages before the colonist crashing.

Although, this does bring me back to the idea of implementing the other Rimworld types.

If you take "we can live there provided we are protected in a can with Earth-like atmosphere" as inhabitable then anything is, it's part of reason we are actually unlikely to EVER terraform : by the time we have the mean to do so it will be easier to just live in space.

Anyway, here we are talking about Earth-like terraformed world with Earth-fauna, so it's relatively soft-SF.
From what I remember of Rimworld's lore those were abandoned planets and the compacted steel we mine are the remnant of very advanced civilization.

But in alpha 9 you can trade trough roofs...

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 18, 2015, 06:01:02 AM
If you take "we can live there provided we are protected in a can with Earth-like atmosphere" as inhabitable then anything is, it's part of reason we are actually unlikely to EVER terraform : by the time we have the mean to do so it will be easier to just live in space.

Anyway, here we are talking about Earth-like terraformed world with Earth-fauna, so it's relatively soft-SF.
From what I remember of Rimworld's lore those were abandoned planets and the compacted steel we mine are the remnant of very advanced civilization.

I would use that as the justification for the inhabitable planet - Said previous civilization was likely responsible for the terraforming, if this wasn't already an inhabitable planet for some reason. It's also possible that they introduced the Earth-like animals.

Still, I think the lore would work better if our colonists were actual space pioneers rather than shipwrecked space travelers. Why else would they be all the way out in the middle of nowhere, anyway? If the Rimworld is in between two more heavily populated areas, can you really say it's in the middle of nowhere?

I'm guessing the only reason to not do so is because one might expect the colonists to be better prepared if they were expecting to colonize, and maybe to make it seem more harsh. I don't think the former would take much to explain: Just say (1) that they were desperate to "move West" and took the cheapest method they could find, or (2) that they were exiled to a Rimworld rather than put in prison, for some reason, or (3) that their ship had difficulties/malfunctions and they had to give up most of their preparations to pay for assistance. That's three ideas on the spot, and I could probably come up with more if I tried. As for the harshness, living out in the boonies has always been known to be harsh, and even if their unwillingness to be out there is needed for some reason, then (2) above would work.

Space trading bothers me in that, like the OP said, if one can call someone to ask for potatoes (and be able to send monies for them automagically), surely one would at least ask about the possibility of being rescued, even if the response is anything ranging from "<click><static>" to "<missiles rained down on you from orbit>" to "sure, hop on board, we'll drop you off somewhere safer". However, this is an Alpha game and the current space trading mechanic is very likely to be a placeholder thing until such time as a better system can be implemented (and I'd wager that recent changes to faction relationships are a step towards that) so having some pithy arguments about how lore-friendly or probable any given scenario or reason for something is is a massive waste of time and effort.

My suspicion (and hope) is that the Orbital Trade Beacon would be changed to "Radio Mast" or "Radio Dish", and the Comms station would be used to contact local tribes to offer to trade with them. The items they have to trade could vary based on the type of tribe, their location and production rates. Once a trade has been completed, members of the other tribe would appear on the map and path to your radio beacon, whereby they would drop the items you have bought and collect the items you have sold before leaving.

This could, naturally, open up the possibilities of ambushing tribes you have traded with and stealing their goods and capture/kill their colonists and also has the benefit of not being a gaping wide hole in the plotline.

From what I gathered of various source and the wiki, Rimworld is a mix of the typical far-west pioneer and a "dark age" setting after galactic decline.

There's valid reasons (SF speaking) for planet being terraformed then abandoned.
- Maybe the terraforming process was automated (mechanoid) and the few true colonist who emigrated there couldn't build a true civilization, the next generation devolving into tribes from lack of education.
- Maybe they abandoned the colonization effort when a war started on the homeworld
- Maybe they didn't needed the new planet anymore, the Glitterworld being so damn cool it doesn't need to expand (especially for resources)

QuoteStill, I think the lore would work better if our colonists were actual space pioneers rather than shipwrecked space travelers. Why else would they be all the way out in the middle of nowhere, anyway? If the Rimworld is in between two more heavily populated areas, can you really say it's in the middle of nowhere?

To me the pioneer case is actually the less credible possibility.
It's all in the number.
At speed slower than light, even at 50% of the speed of light (which is quite awesome) over close 20 light-year distance you would take 40 years.
And if inhabitable planet are 100 light-years apart, that's 200 years of travel, more than an human generation. Adding non-FTL communication (laser taking years to travel, just one way) you'd have to know if you can send colonist OR send send a self-sustaining population at once as if nobody else would follow OR... send robot to colonize the planet.

Two solar system 100Ly apart are basically more separated than China was from America before it was 'discovered'.
Imagine : event at short 20ly distance : 40y of colonist travel, 10y to 'prepare the planet', 20years for light to tell the first-world that it is viable...
And once you know you already have hundred of apparently sufficient colony, "preserving human civilization" is not a reason anymore.

But with Rimworld's lore right now it can be a lot of thing. Tynan choose well.

One could go from an Industrial World to a Glitterworld hoping for better comfort (immortality..etc)
One could go from Glitterworld to Industrial world thinking that with their knowledge they can accomplish great thing and become "founding father"
One could be a Pioneer sent to what was to be a new colony ... that actually collapsed 50years ago before their arrival
One could be a political exile going to a planet they think more suited to them
One could also be fleeing a Mechanoid invasion on their home planet and get stranded on planet where the mechanoid had scout
Or one know there's "other colony" and hope to find one where every land/asteroid haven't been bought already.

In all case the 'shipwrecked' tropes justify there not being 1000 pioneers landing at once with all survival equipment.
All this supposing that we don't live and travel in space-colony anyway

tl;dr

i feel like the whole convo has been discussed to death before. my search button is broken by lazy, but i'm kinda sure i've been in a similar thread before. the "you can now trade indoors" is pretty new though, coz of the item degradation of A9.

as for the "you can't hitch a ride with the space traders" ... because "reasons.." argument,
my opinion is that it's a game balancing or design issue rather than a lore issue.

camps are usually divided between the "why" and the "why not?"
i think it's a matter of paradigm shifts.

as an experiment : the "why nots" should take the perspective of the "why" and vice versa.

seriously... fun times..

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 17, 2015, 07:22:44 PM
I would also say that 2 inhabitable planets in the same system is also improbable but that's actually as probable as having a inhabitable/terraformed planet with terran animals in the first place.
Aside, I've been on ProjectRho (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php) for too long.

...and where everyone speaks English, even the animals - just like on real-life/TV  ::)

@Kegereneku: How is having trade ships around more probable in a shipwrecked scenario?

That's the aspect that I found to be more probable, that would work better with the lore, if the colonists were actual space pioneers. Your argument is even harsher with a shipwreck on a rim world, since nobody will know to check in the first place.

Quote from: ja7833 on March 18, 2015, 08:03:19 PM

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 17, 2015, 07:22:44 PM
I would also say that 2 inhabitable planets in the same system is also improbable but that's actually as probable as having a inhabitable/terraformed planet with terran animals in the first place.
Aside, I've been on ProjectRho (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php) for too long.

...and where everyone speaks English, even the animals - just like on real-life/TV  ::)

B-b-but everyone does speak English. See? We're all speaking English right now! That proves it! ;P

Quote from: SSS on March 18, 2015, 11:26:57 AMIf the Rimworld is in between two more heavily populated areas, can you really say it's in the middle of nowhere?

Passing through 'flyover country'?  ;D

On a side note, what always humors me about these conversations is how unrealistic reality is to some.

Quote from: keylocke on March 18, 2015, 01:28:57 PM
tl;dr

i feel like the whole convo has been discussed to death before. my search button is broken by lazy, but i'm kinda sure i've been in a similar thread before. the "you can now trade indoors" is pretty new though, coz of the item degradation of A9.

as for the "you can't hitch a ride with the space traders" ... because "reasons.." argument,
my opinion is that it's a game balancing or design issue rather than a lore issue.

camps are usually divided between the "why" and the "why not?"
i think it's a matter of paradigm shifts.

as an experiment : the "why nots" should take the perspective of the "why" and vice versa.

seriously... fun times..

Well, i did point that the can't catch a ride was, essentially, a gameplay decision to allow for both trading and the game to exist, which is something we agree. I usually try the "experiment", as you put it, but regarding the subject i never heard, until know, a sensible explanation. But Kegereneku's interpretation of trading ships as automated trading subroutines actually makes sense for me and its kinda cool. He also brought slave trading up, something that i completely overlooked and that would have prevented somethings. Since slave trading happens and their price is actually not that high, we can infer that transportation costs are not that absurd, one would just have to interpret/assume a reason why there aren't any non-questionable vessels around.

I won't dabble much on the rest of whys and hows because its too deeply in the realm of conjecture.

At a guess, I would say that whomever or whatever operates trade ships this far out, it may take some time for shipments to move between solar systems.

If there are automated drone ships which can make contact with individual planets, then they likely take goods back and forward from some sort of 'hive' ship. It makes sense to not get a channel directly to a hive ship - they may not want to give away their position and invite an ambush, or the comm range of an improvised console may simply be too short to reach it.

While the crew of the hive ship (if there is a crew) may know that a ship crashed on a planet and that there are survivors, they may not be authorised to do anything about it. Their main concern would be getting the next shipment ready.  Also, they may have no particular qualms about exploiting rimworld systems if the locals (your colonists) are willing to gather up resources and ready them for transport in exchange for things that they have in abundance.

It'd be like Amazon in space. :D

Quote from: MarvinKosh on March 19, 2015, 06:47:26 AM
At a guess, I would say that whomever or whatever operates trade ships this far out, it may take some time for shipments to move between solar systems.

If there are automated drone ships which can make contact with individual planets, then they likely take goods back and forward from some sort of 'hive' ship. It makes sense to not get a channel directly to a hive ship - they may not want to give away their position and invite an ambush, or the comm range of an improvised console may simply be too short to reach it.

While the crew of the hive ship (if there is a crew) may know that a ship crashed on a planet and that there are survivors, they may not be authorised to do anything about it. Their main concern would be getting the next shipment ready.  Also, they may have no particular qualms about exploiting rimworld systems if the locals (your colonists) are willing to gather up resources and ready them for transport in exchange for things that they have in abundance.

It'd be like Amazon in space. :D

Also makes sense, i wouldn't even be surprised if it were to be the actual amazon hehe

Besides trading, one must also think on the purpose of your pawns own ship. Since pawn backgrounds vary randomly, from primitive to glitterworlds, i think it's left unexplained so the player fills it with his own explanation (oh, it was a survey, a passenger, a military vessel, etc). Which, again, makes it possible for there to be more of it out there, giving you a chance to be rescued, as far as remote that chance would be.

Unless your pawn's ship was a trader itself, then local traffic is more than happy to see you go out of business? 

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 18, 2015, 10:00:09 PM

Quote from: SSS on March 18, 2015, 11:26:57 AMIf the Rimworld is in between two more heavily populated areas, can you really say it's in the middle of nowhere?

Passing through 'flyover country'?  ;D

On a side note, what always humors me about these conversations is how unrealistic reality is to some.

This doesn't seem very practical given how long it takes to travel from one place to the next in space. Passing over inhabitable planets/systems in favor of much further ones doesn't make any sense, so there shouldn't be any.

If you're going to say it wasn't passed up, but that an entire civilization just "disappeared", then I ask why it hasn't been re-inhabited yet.

'Ignoring your side comment.

Quote from: SSS on March 19, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
This doesn't seem very practical given how long it takes to travel from one place to the next in space. Passing over inhabitable planets/systems in favor of much further ones doesn't make any sense, so there shouldn't be any.

That entirely depends. Parallel to how things function on earth. For instance, no small number of people in the US never even see parts of the midwest or deep south unless they explicitly go out of their way in traveling.

In large countries with limited infrastructure, the difference in trade volume between large cities and small towns can be drastic. Even if those smaller towns are technically just out of the way of a trade route. They wouldn't bother going out of their way for you, you would need to contact them (which is essentially what you do in RW).

Quote from: Johnny Masters on March 19, 2015, 12:31:21 PM
Besides trading, one must also think on the purpose of your pawns own ship. Since pawn backgrounds vary randomly, from primitive to glitterworlds, i think it's left unexplained so the player fills it with his own explanation (oh, it was a survey, a passenger, a military vessel, etc).

There's a problem here. If you're constructing your own story and background in the context of Rimworld, then the 'plotholes' are really just holes in your own story.

You can't outsource the hole/unexplaining/whatever to the player, the player only makes the best out of it.

So then the problem is that the game doesn't presently allow for the kind of story you'd like to make?

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 19, 2015, 02:16:19 PM

Quote from: SSS on March 19, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
This doesn't seem very practical given how long it takes to travel from one place to the next in space. Passing over inhabitable planets/systems in favor of much further ones doesn't make any sense, so there shouldn't be any.

That entirely depends. Parallel to how things function on earth. For instance, no small number of people in the US never even see parts of the midwest or deep south unless they explicitly go out of their way in traveling.

In large countries with limited infrastructure, the difference in trade volume between large cities and small towns can be drastic. Even if those smaller towns are technically just out of the way of a trade route. They wouldn't bother going out of their way for you, you would need to contact them (which is essentially what you do in RW).

You missed my point completely. This isn't like the (inhabited) country or third world countries because we're not trying to colonize them. It's very easy to go further to some other destination if we so desire. In the context of trying to colonize new planets and expand vast distances, it makes more sense to take closer regions first, so there shouldn't be any in-between zones under normal circumstances.

I'm saying your analogy is bad.

Oh, you're speaking about the imperative for colonial expansion.

Even then, it depends. Even expansion into new habitable territory is preferential, depending on the motive for expanding to begin with.

The only reason I can think of is some vastly superior habitable region, be it in natural resources or abundance of land. So, for example, if one or two close solar systems were discovered that contained a huge number of habitable planets, or if there were grand quantities of important natural resources, then you might have justification for a temporary in-between region. (Gold rushes caused this sort of mentality while the West was still being colonized, with the California Gold Rush being an excellent example.)

The thing is, systems are hardly arranged in a linear manner. You won't inevitably pass by some nowheres-ville colonized planet on the way to this trophy system you're wanting to trade with (which could indeed be very lucrative and worth the venture). It's even less likely than it would be traveling across a continent to some further colonized area. It might be possible, but it's very improbable, and improbability, naturally, tends to be the main source of broken suspension of disbelief in any story. (For example: That's why people tend to accept that Superman can fly and that he's allergic to a rock, yet tend to scoff when his co-workers never recognize his face or voice as Clark Kent.)

I think it would make more sense to see traders if our colonists were in this theoretical high-profit region. Even if it's a full-blown colonization attempt, we could say that most of the colonists were killed in the shipwreck, thus merging the "stranded" and "pioneer" concepts. Nobody's going to come to take you back, but they will come to make money (off you and other nearby planets in said region).

Edit: That could also justify new factions appearing at some point after the game starts, even if it's years later.

Edit 2: It would be really cool if far down the line we could have a "campaign mode" of sorts that tells a story across centuries- about the development of space around the Rim World. It starts out a Rim World indeed, but it eventually booms (due to the various technology clashes) and hits progressively higher levels of development, each with their own challenges. During the Rim World era it's mostly about surviving. During the Midworld era you might have to deal with more people in a war context (say, an inter-planetary empire is trying to form), as well as homogenizing factions. After that you'd deal with what would amount to the triumph or downfall of the region as it turns mostly into Glitterworlds or Urbworlds (maybe with an encounter or two with "Transcendence", though attaining this probably shouldn't be possible).

How you do in each section would affect the rest. If you triumph during the Rim World era, you take on the colony's descendents further down the line. If you fail, you might be that faction trying to form an inter-planetary empire (say, the pirate's descendents). So on and so forth, and it doesn't need to be exactly like my examples.

I don't think I can overstate the amount of work that would take, though, and I'm not entirely sure if it fits within Rimworld's premise, so it's mostly in the "I can dream" realm right now. xD

After reading all post, the question seem to be "What kind of context/backstory allow us to justify as many case as possible ?"
On the matter what I gathered from Rimworld's lore sound to me extremely suited for many many kind of story (within what we accept for science-fiction of course).

Quote from: SSS on March 18, 2015, 09:04:10 PM
@Kegereneku: How is having trade ships around more probable in a shipwrecked scenario?

That's the aspect that I found to be more probable, that would work better with the lore, if the colonists were actual space pioneers. Your argument is even harsher with a shipwreck on a rim world, since nobody will know to check in the first place.

Thing is, we have a whole sliding scale of realism from soft to hard SF to work with. So you have to invent the logic that lead to what you want sounding plausible. The pioneer-colonist for example is ...childish for HARD science-fiction but acceptable for softer SF, same for space-trading.
If I'm allowed to reformulate the lore I can make pioneer just as likely as unlikely.

In one logic, a ship can get wrecked here because there was a traffic* in the first place. Goods trading is indeed unlikely over such distance but still possible if the destination is incapable of producing the goods. So it isn't so much 'middle of nowhere' than 'on the way'.

*SCIENCE (see next quote) can justify ship halting by system-planet on their way fairly easily. But explaining why there is a continuous traffic is harder.

In another logic, the would-be pioneer colonist crashed on arrival.
But this time it ask for goods trader to voluntarily come to a 'middle of nowhere' which bring us back to how to justify their existence.
Note that 'volunteer pioneer colonist' negate a lot of the mystery and flexibility in term of storytelling. Imagine the TV series "Lost" if the crash survivors were stated to be peoples who wanted to live on an desert island.

This is why many suggested to replace (interstellar)trade-ship by local caravan.
Those caravan would be like us 'incapable of cheaply producing said good', the goods could come entirely from scavenging & other pods crash. From there, normal trading paradigm apply.

Said 'caravan of scavenger' are compatible with both shipwrecked/pioneer context, but -to me- more probable with the shipwrecked one because it have more parameter to play with.

Quote from: SSS on March 19, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
This doesn't seem very practical given how long it takes to travel from one place to the next in space. Passing over inhabitable planets/systems in favor of much further ones doesn't make any sense, so there shouldn't be any.

If you're going to say it wasn't passed up, but that an entire civilization just "disappeared", then I ask why it hasn't been re-inhabited yet.

I can give possibility...
1) Spaceship reliability, if a spaceship can fail over 20light-year of travel, you better stop every 10 light-years at known inhabitable point to check it and 'reset/lessen' the risk, rather than dying mid-space.
2) Few people could have both reasons and the means to truly Colonize a planet, and as said earlier the lack of FTL and over 10y travel time ask for it to be independent.

A government could recolonize/exploit a system. But do they need to ? Humanity won't die because there's already other colony, Extracting resources so far might not be profitable, it would be costly to recolonize, require lot of colonist and ultimately said colony would become independent.
Way smaller group of privater could want to to found a new world but lack the means (technology/science/manpower/education) to do more than a primitive settlement.
This explaining nicely a crazy range of factions on Rimworld.

Lastly, it might be hardly conceivable for a technologically advanced civilization to just "disappear" but in the realm of SF you can shape everything to make the improbable into facts.
That mystery is a fertile soil for us to imagine.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 19, 2015, 06:46:29 PMThing is, we have a whole sliding scale of realism from soft to hard SF to work with. So you have to invent the logic that lead to what you want sounding plausible. The pioneer-colonist for example is ...childish for HARD science-fiction but acceptable for softer SF, same for space-trading.
If I'm allowed to reformulate the lore I can make pioneer just as likely as unlikely.

In one logic, a ship can get wrecked here because there was a traffic* in the first place. Goods trading is indeed unlikely over such distance but still possible if the destination is incapable of producing the goods. So it isn't so much 'middle of nowhere' than 'on the way'.

*SCIENCE (see next quote) can justify ship halting by system-planet on their way fairly easily. But explaining why there is a continuous traffic is harder.

First, you need to explain why the pioneer idea is softer than the shipwrecked idea. I'm not going to just accept that unless I understand the reasoning behind it.

I already addressed the "California Gold Rush" scenario above. It's very, very improbable that there are other inhabitable systems in between point A and point B, meaning that there shouldn't be anyone passing by close enough to trade in the first place.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 19, 2015, 06:46:29 PMIn another logic, the would-be pioneer colonist crashed on arrival.
But this time it ask for goods trader to voluntarily come to a 'middle of nowhere' which bring us back to how to justify their existence.
Note that 'volunteer pioneer colonist' negate a lot of the mystery and flexibility in term of storytelling. Imagine the TV series "Lost" if the crash survivors were stated to be peoples who wanted to live on an desert island.

This would be a lucrative "middle-of-nowhere" in the above post's example. For normal expansion, I concede that there might not be as many traders as there currently are in Rimworld, but it still makes more sense/is more likely than a trader happening to pass through a system on the way to another system, unless they need fuel and the pass-through system is inhabited. This wouldn't be the case with a Rim system.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 19, 2015, 06:46:29 PMThis is why many suggested to replace (interstellar)trade-ship by local caravan.
Those caravan would be like us 'incapable of cheaply producing said good', the goods could come entirely from scavenging & other pods crash. From there, normal trading paradigm apply.

Said 'caravan of scavenger' are compatible with both shipwrecked/pioneer context, but -to me- more probable with the shipwrecked one because it have more parameter to play with.

I have no problem with this. It would solve a lot of questions posed without needing to answer them.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 19, 2015, 06:46:29 PMI can give possibility...
1) Spaceship reliability, if a spaceship can fail over 20light-year of travel, you better stop every 10 light-years at known inhabitable point to check it and 'reset/lessen' the risk, rather than dying mid-space.

This is a decent possibility. Stopping at an inhabitable planet, even if it is in the middle of nowhere, would make sense for maintenance purposes if you can do so. However, if you need to travel significantly out of your way to do so (as would be usual in space), even this wouldn't be common.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 19, 2015, 06:46:29 PM2) Few people could have both reasons and the means to truly Colonize a planet, and as said earlier the lack of FTL and over 10y travel time ask for it to be independent.

A government could recolonize/exploit a system. But do they need to ? Humanity won't die because there's already other colony, Extracting resources so far might not be profitable, it would be costly to recolonize, require lot of colonist and ultimately said colony would become independent.
Way smaller group of privater could want to to found a new world but lack the means (technology/science/manpower/education) to do more than a primitive settlement.
This explaining nicely a crazy range of factions on Rimworld.

This too is fair: We need reasons for further colonization in the first place, but, again, this is even harsher on the colonies that are further away than a theoretical "in between" world. Why would they colonize that region rather than this one? (See my above post for possible explanations.)

Also, it is possible that a large number of colonists were sent, but only a few survived after the crash, merging the shipwreck and pioneer concepts (like in my above post).

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 19, 2015, 06:46:29 PMLastly, it might be hardly conceivable for a technologically advanced civilization to just "disappear" but in the realm of SF you can shape everything to make the improbable into facts.
That mystery is a fertile soil for us to imagine.

To be clear, are you aiming for soft sci-fi or hard sci-fi? I can't tell for certain.

Assuming the planet isn't marbled or toxic, I see no reason for it to not become re-inhabited, especially by factions seeking power in a sector. Controlling trade routes is a big deal, and is more readily possible if you have an inhabited in-between system since people might want to stop there for maintenance, supplies, etc. (as you said)- This is most likely when the system itself is transformed into a good trading destination, giving people greater incentive to divert further off their point A to point B path than there would be otherwise.

Also, when I'm talking about the improbable breaking disbelief, that doesn't include the premise usually. Fiction is generally assumed to be "like reality unless noted". If something isn't like reality, it needs to set that up for us. What is set in a reality-like context will be criticized: Using my Superman example, human interaction is a reality-based situation, which is why when they don't act normal (recognizing that Clark's and Superman's voices are the same, that their faces are the same) it's considered "suspension breaking". On the other hand, flying is completely fantastical and part of the premise- consuming the story comes with the condition that we accept its breaks from reality where it notes it, so criticizing Superman for being "unrealistic" due to human flying being impossible is unfair and breaks the rules of willing suspension of disbelief.

(edit : minor correction, small add)

...let's start the Text Generator...
I wrote some of this with a 'sleep deprived' debuff

Quote from: SSS on March 19, 2015, 07:25:56 PM

First, you need to explain why the pioneer idea is softer than the shipwrecked idea. I'm not going to just accept that unless I understand the reasoning behind it.

I already addressed the "California Gold Rush" scenario above. It's very, very improbable that there are other inhabitable systems in between point A and point B, meaning that there shouldn't be anyone passing by close enough to trade in the first place.

Let's say the myth of the self-made Pioneer isn't realistically transposable|/url] into space.
I think this website [url=http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellarcolony.php]AtomicRocket (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/space-cadets.html) will cover more than I could (next page cover trading).

An Hard-sf logic for example can point out that we don't need a planet to live. If we can build comfy enough space-colony we can keep living in them better or even stay in orbit. Technology is assumed to ward-off any uncomforted/problems and all the resources found on planet can be found more easily accessible outside a gravity well.
If terraforming a planet (in person, or robot) would require to have the technology to do without first, it make terraforming unnecessary and wasteful.

Now in our context we are baseline human going toward a destination that is already inhabitable in ship paid for, no one ask how the planet was terraformed, by whom, where is the infrastructure and the organization, how it got there 50ly away from home and how it disappeared.
You just have colonist with magical tool and apparently perfect knowledge of various technology.

In short, our starting setting is quite soft to begin with (including how spaceship use reaction-less drive). It was made to allow many idea, as much the shipwreck than the pioneer.

QuoteThis would be a lucrative "middle-of-nowhere" in the above post's example. For normal expansion, I concede that there might not be as many traders as there currently are in Rimworld, but it still makes more sense/is more likely than a trader happening to pass through a system on the way to another system, unless they need fuel and the pass-through system is inhabited. This wouldn't be the case with a Rim system.

First, from what I read you seem to supposing humanity will alway keep expanding its 'frontier'. But the reason it was done/possible on Earth aren't the same in space. Possibility can be divided in numerous case including Rimworld "abandoned planet".

Sorry if I repeat myself but that's where we shape the universe to fit the plot you want.

If I took a Hard-SF logic there would be no point for interstellar trader if you can bring schematic and start producing everything here in less time and effort than if would take to bring the goods from 10ly away. Especially since in hard-sf the spaceship is more costly to operate than what you would gain from trading.

But if we really want to make it fit... you can imagine the context of 'The Songs of Distant Earth' by Arthur C. Clarke. In this story human sent slow-seed-ship century before the very very hard way, then managed to built a reaction-less thruster that made possible heavy-cryogenic-ship moving at the speed of light.
But the ship travel so fast that particle it meet destroy the shield in front of it. And so they must stop in between star to rebuild the shield (out of ice) regularly.
They don't "need" the ice to be from the planet (there's asteroid), but they can.
(the whole story reference Native on island and Colonial passing by).

Back on Rimworld, as said we can imagine that trader-or-transport pass by star system they know to have inhabitable planet, to refuel/check. To answer why would they trade with you ? Because they know you are in need........... and can sell at way higher price. (we pretend here it is worth it)

QuoteI have no problem with this. It would solve a lot of questions posed without needing to answer them.

Indeed.

QuoteThis is a decent possibility. Stopping at an inhabitable planet, even if it is in the middle of nowhere, would make sense for maintenance purposes if you can do so. However, if you need to travel significantly out of your way to do so (as would be usual in space), even this wouldn't be common.

'Significantly' is the key word, space is vast and it depend on the ratio of inhabited/other star systems, how much in a hurry you are. By the time you arrive a whole generation of human being might have disappeared, technology and politic will have changed...
That's part of why trade or even cargo between star system without FTL is considered unlikely/impossible in hard-SF (which itself avoid FTL).

QuoteThis too is fair: We need reasons for further colonization in the first place, but, again, this is even harsher on the colonies that are further away than a theoretical "in between" world. Why would they colonize that region rather than this one? (See my above post for possible explanations.)

Also, it is possible that a large number of colonists were sent, but only a few survived after the crash, merging the shipwreck and pioneer concepts (like in my above post).

As said we need reason. Then a leitmotiv (will it improve the life of the one traveling/paying for?).
Because good planet could be as well 10ly apart than 50ly the 'colonist' are basically abandoning everyone and everything they knew.
You are describing it like an expanding frontier (which could be justified) but if you must travel years anyway with a terraforming-fleet, you might focus more on "best planet/system" rather than "closest system" first.

Remember that the lore mention planet colonized long long before then abandoned/deserted or stagnating. An 'In-between world' (even inhabited) might not be closer or more interesting to an Industrial/Glitterworld than other "outside" candidate.

In result it could give
<Glitterworld>-10ly-<candidate>---30ly---<rimworld>---50ly---<Industrialworld>---10ly---<candidate>

You might also want to consider why the planet was abandoned in the first place. Maybe you don't want to live with Mechanoid and Boomrat as neighbor (or exterminate the native again). Maybe the plasteel of the planet isn't worth recycling and the system have already been exploited* by the precedent civilization, maybe a nearby star is about to blow-up...

*just a note : this is for argumentation, myself I consider that one solar system contain more than enough resources for millennium before it get impossible to predict what the civilization will look like.

QuoteTo be clear, are you aiming for soft sci-fi or hard sci-fi? I can't tell for certain.

Neither one or the other. I'm just trying to put thing in perspective.
Personally I have a soft spot for Hard-SF, but I know it tend to do bad thing to our dream (you don't want to know what it do to them)
Rimworld wouldn't survive long if analyzed realistically, and remaking its multiple facet 'harder' would be counter-productive.
But soft sci-fi isn't inferior, it is good for storytelling as long as its tropes aren't too cheesy or predictable, and this have nothing to do with realism.
All you need is preserve suspension of disbelief.

QuoteAssuming the planet isn't marbled or toxic, I see no reason for it to not become re-inhabited, especially by factions seeking power in a sector. Controlling trade routes is a big deal, and is more readily possible if you have an inhabited in-between system since people might want to stop there for maintenance, supplies, etc. (as you said)- this is most likely when the system itself is transformed into a good trading destination, giving people greater incentive to divert further off their point A to point B path than there would be otherwise.

I can poke hole in that one with noth a soft or hard sci-fi approach.
- you need the resources to colonize a planet, you must be stronger than a government.
- it will take years to start controlling the system and build a population that support your ambition (and claim for legitimacy)
- with STL comm it can take 10y-50y to receive outdated information, you'll be alone on this.
- if you are (seen as) a threat (by other planet), you will be dealt with like one by other.
- trader might just change route, the inhabited planet was good but was not necessary space is also 3D and way too vast to control as border (if hard science at least).
- but now realistically, those "trade route" couldn't be compared to maritime trade routes... if they even exist.
As said trading itself is soft-sf.

Anyway, you are clearly thinking in term of "expanding frontier", but there is no frontier in space. In Hard-SF the best way to pass by a system "unseen" is to move close to the speed of light making it impossible to match velocity if they even see you in time.

btw : you just reminded me a short story I can link you to about how a trader beat a pirate-planet who keep capturing his qualified-worker (the goods exchanged here). It went like this :
The trader could afford to have 1 ship on 10 be an expensive trap for the pirate. Himself he could absorb the over-cost but the pirate couldn't because he had no supply of qualified-pirate. (no infinite raider!)

QuoteAlso, when I'm talking about the improbably breaking disbelief, that doesn't include the premise usually. Fiction is generally assumed to be "like reality unless noted". If something isn't like reality, it needs to set that up for us. What is set in a reality-like context will be criticized: Using my Superman example, human interaction is a reality-based situation, which is why when they don't act normal (recognizing that Clark's and Superman's voices are the same, that their faces are the same) it's considered "suspension breaking". On the other hand, flying is completely fantastical and part of the premise- consuming the story comes with the condition that we accept its breaks from reality where it notes it, so criticizing Superman for being "unrealistic" due to human flying being impossible is unfair and breaks the rules of willing suspension of disbelief.

Disbelief is entirely based upon people knowledges of reality or fictional tropes. Many people don't know for example that space isn't cold, that you cannot "fall from orbit" with a measly explosion or many else.
Furthermore suspension of disbelief can be invoked intentionally for the need of the story. Considering that, I don't see a need to argue over superiority of pioneer over shipwreck. The LOST IN SPACE tropes is pretty well known and accepted and the blurred lore of Rimworld allow a wide range of possibility.

Our problem here was to find if we can make the trader better. The caravan seem to work, I think we could even keep it a ship, just not an interstellar/planetary one

I'm going to have to flag down the probability bit. There is too much unknown about the scenarios described to have that claim stick with nothing to really justify it. Countless stars, where you can't pick a direction without bumping into something, and yet it's arbitrarily, specifically improbable here because.. reasons.

Statements like "We need reasons" should read more like "I need a reason", because the case isn't that the matter isn't justified, it's that you aren't satisfied with it. Which is fine. Just an important difference to clarify.

Also there's some odd consistency to run together. I find it odd that the 'improbable to run into' planet would be 'easily recolonized'. Particularly in the case that the colonists you start the game with are clearly not the first people to land on any given planet.

I did some light proofreading, but please forgive spelling or grammar errors, as well as potential overuse of some words or phrases. Also, because I exceeded the character limit, I'll be splitting my response to Kegereneku and Mathenaut into two posts.

Quote from: Kegereneku

Quote from: SSSFirst, you need to explain why the pioneer idea is softer than the shipwrecked idea. I'm not going to just accept that unless I understand the reasoning behind it.

I already addressed the "California Gold Rush" scenario above. It's very, very improbable that there are other inhabitable systems in between point A and point B, meaning that there shouldn't be anyone passing by close enough to trade in the first place.

Let's say the myth of the self-made Pioneer isn't realistically transposable|/url] into space.
I think this website [url=http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellarcolony.php]AtomicRocket (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/space-cadets.html) will cover more than I could (next page cover trading).

An Hard-sf logic for example can point out that we don't need a planet to live. If we can build comfy enough space-colony we can keep living in them better or even stay in orbit. Technology is assumed to ward-off any uncomforted/problems and all the resources found on planet can be found more easily accessible outside a gravity well.
If terraforming a planet (in person, or robot) would require to have the technology to do without first, it make terraforming unnecessary and wasteful.

Now in our context we are baseline human going toward a destination that is already inhabitable in ship paid for, no one ask how the planet was terraformed, by whom, where is the infrastructure and the organization, how it got there 50ly away from home and how it disappeared.
You just have colonist with magical tool and apparently perfect knowledge of various technology.

In short, our starting setting is quite soft to begin with (including how spaceship use reaction-less drive). It was made to allow many idea, as much the shipwreck than the pioneer.

I started to skip reading the article, but I'm glad I did now. My comparison to the California Gold Rush has nothing to do with equating space to the West. Colonization does indeed require combined effort, and nothing that article said really had anything at all to do with what I said. I don't know what point you're trying to make with it, so I will make my question as abundantly plain and spelled-out as I can possibly muster (you seem to be misunderstanding):

We have space traders. They are in the game, permanently or temporarily, for better or worse, whether they make the setting soft of not. They are present. My point is tied completely and irrevocably to their presence, so arguments or asides complaining that they shouldn't be present or irrelevant to the point I am currently making.

For them to be present, (and they are present) there needs to be some explanation, even if the only appropriate explanation takes us into soft sci-fi territory. Because they are present, I am saying that a colonizing attempt would be more likely to lead to traders being in the region of the game's planet than a circumstantial passing through the system to another system. I am saying the former is a better explanation than the latter because of the current reality present in the game (that is, the presence of space traders).

Why humanity isn't in space colonies rather than terraformed planets (or whether there are some space colonies and we just don't know about them) is beyond the scope of the conversation concerning the justification of the presence of space traders.

Now that I have that established, I will try to defend my position below, but do note that I am not tied to my position. I am open to changing it if another more logical explanation favoring against colonization (to explain the presence of space traders) is present. We've both already agreed that the ideal solution would be a lack of space traders present, so there's little more to discuss in that direction.

Quote from: Kegereneku

Quote from: SSSThis would be a lucrative "middle-of-nowhere" in the above post's example. For normal expansion, I concede that there might not be as many traders as there currently are in Rimworld, but it still makes more sense/is more likely than a trader happening to pass through a system on the way to another system, unless they need fuel and the pass-through system is inhabited. This wouldn't be the case with a Rim system.

First, from what I read you seem to supposing humanity will alway keep expanding its 'frontier'. But the reason it was done/possible on Earth aren't the same in space. Possibility can be divided in numerous case including Rimworld "abandoned planet".

Sorry if I repeat myself but that's where we shape the universe to fit the plot you want.

If I took a Hard-SF logic there would be no point for interstellar trader if you can bring schematic and start producing everything here in less time and effort than if would take to bring the goods from 10ly away. Especially since in hard-sf the spaceship is more costly to operate than what you would gain from trading.

But if we really want to make it fit... you can imagine the context of 'The Songs of Distant Earth' by Arthur C. Clarke. In this story human sent slow-seed-ship century before the very very hard way, then managed to built a reaction-less thruster that made possible heavy-cryogenic-ship moving at the speed of light.
But the ship travel so fast that particle it meet destroy the shield in front of it. And so they must stop in between star to rebuild the shield (out of ice) regularly.
They don't "need" the ice to be from the planet (there's asteroid), but they can.
(the whole story reference Native on island and Colonial passing by).

Back on Rimworld, as said we can imagine that trader-or-transport pass by star system they know to have inhabitable planet, to refuel/check. To answer why would they trade with you ? Because they know you are in need........... and can sell at way higher price. (we pretend here it is worth it)

I'm not sure what your point/conclusion is. Traders are present. That might make the scifi "soft", but that again is beyond the scope of my point. Because space traders are present, I'm saying that having a colony they're trying to visit makes more sense than catching them while they pass through nowheres-ville.

Two things need to be established here. First, to travel through the "middle of nowhere", you need a destination beyond said "nowhere". Second, space is 3D, meaning that you can miss a system due to a difference in the X, Y, or Z axis in your straight-line travel between your start point and end point.

I will get into the specifics of why those two points make a colonization attempt more likely to bring traders below. If you dispute the below rather than these establishments directly, then I will assume you agree with the establishments.

Quote from: Kegereneku

Quote from: SSSThis is a decent possibility. Stopping at an inhabitable planet, even if it is in the middle of nowhere, would make sense for maintenance purposes if you can do so. However, if you need to travel significantly out of your way to do so (as would be usual in space), even this wouldn't be common.

'Significantly' is the key word, space is vast and it depend on the ratio of inhabited/other star systems, how much in a hurry you are. By the time you arrive a whole generation of human being might have disappeared, technology and politic will have changed...
That's part of why trade or even cargo between star system without FTL is considered unlikely/impossible in hard-SF (which itself avoid FTL).

Like I said before, I already agree that having no space traders in the first place would be better. This entire line of conversation I'm heading in is under the prerequisite that there are space traders present, and in the current quantities we see in-game.

Quote from: Kegereneku

Quote from: SSSThis too is fair: We need reasons for further colonization in the first place, but, again, this is even harsher on the colonies that are further away than a theoretical "in between" world. Why would they colonize that region rather than this one? (See my above post for possible explanations.)

Also, it is possible that a large number of colonists were sent, but only a few survived after the crash, merging the shipwreck and pioneer concepts (like in my above post).

As said we need reason. Then a leitmotiv (will it improve the life of the one traveling/paying for?).
Because good planet could be as well 10ly apart than 50ly the 'colonist' are basically abandoning everyone and everything they knew.
You are describing it like an expanding frontier (which could be justified) but if you must travel years anyway with a terraforming-fleet, you might focus more on "best planet/system" rather than "closest system" first.

Remember that the lore mention planet colonized long long before then abandoned/deserted or stagnating. An 'In-between world' (even inhabited) might not be closer or more interesting to an Industrial/Glitterworld than other "outside" candidate.

In result it could give
<Glitterworld>-10ly-<candidate>---30ly---<rimworld>---50ly---<Industrialworld>---10ly---<candidate>

You might also want to consider why the planet was abandoned in the first place. Maybe you don't want to live with Mechanoid and Boomrat as neighbor (or exterminate the native again). Maybe the plasteel of the planet isn't worth recycling and the system have already been exploited* by the precedent civilization, maybe a nearby star is about to blow-up...

*just a note : this is for argumentation, myself I consider that one solar system contain more than enough resources for millennium before it get impossible to predict what the civilization will look like.

I agree that it would make more sense to go for the better planets for colonization, but only under the condition that distance does actually matter. While it is true that the colonists in question will be leaving everything one way or the other, matters such as confirming the success of the colony, sending additional people (if desirable), and so on take much longer as well when the difference is magnitudes greater. (There's a big difference between waiting 20 years for a communication and response, and 100 years for the same.) As distance increases, so the magnitude of desirability of the better planet needs to rise in comparison. If the difference is between a planet with "bad gravity, bad day-night cycles, and bad atmosphere" and a planet that only has a "bad atmosphere", then the latter might be preferable despite the further distance since the end result of terraforming would be significantly better.

What makes this interesting is the re-colonization bit. Why would you try to recolonize a world infested with mechanoids and AI personas with psychological warfare (psychic projection) capabilities...? Well, for one, you don't have to go through the (likely time consuming/expensive) process of finding and terraforming another potentially habitable planet. For two, the planet itself could be part of a "hot region" with vast resources or multiple potentially habitable planets (making colonizing more than one possible, if desired). The mechanoids and AI personas could be part of a war to control this region, or the product of rebels, zealots, or anarchists trying to keep anyone from controlling it.

I don't think a temporary lack of civilization translates to a planet definitely being undesirable, even if it could. If you have other reasoning to combine with this, I think that would help a lot.

Quote from: Kegereneku

Quote from: SSSTo be clear, are you aiming for soft sci-fi or hard sci-fi? I can't tell for certain.

Neither one or the other. I'm just trying to put thing in perspective.
Personally I have a soft spot for Hard-SF, but I know it tend to do bad thing to our dream (you don't want to know what it do to them)
Rimworld wouldn't survive long if analyzed realistically, and remaking its multiple facet 'harder' would be counter-productive.
But soft sci-fi isn't inferior, it is good for storytelling as long as its tropes aren't too cheesy or predictable, and this have nothing to do with realism.
All you need is preserve suspension of disbelief.

Okay. It's just hard to tell when you keep mentioning how the traders' presence is unlikely, only to then talk about possible explanations for their presence. I'm trying to keep the conversation geared toward the latter, since we already agree on the former.

Quote from: Kegereneku

Quote from: SSSAssuming the planet isn't marbled or toxic, I see no reason for it to not become re-inhabited, especially by factions seeking power in a sector. Controlling trade routes is a big deal, and is more readily possible if you have an inhabited in-between system since people might want to stop there for maintenance, supplies, etc. (as you said)- this is most likely when the system itself is transformed into a good trading destination, giving people greater incentive to divert further off their point A to point B path than there would be otherwise.

I can poke hole in that one with noth a soft or hard sci-fi approach.
- you need the resources to colonize a planet, you must be stronger than a government.
- it will take years to start controlling the system and build a population that support your ambition (and claim for legitimacy)
- with STL comm it can take 10y-50y to receive outdated information, you'll be alone on this.
- if you are (seen as) a threat (by other planet), you will be dealt with like one by other.
- trader might just change route, the inhabited planet was good but was not necessary space is also 3D and way too vast to control as border (if hard science at least).
- but now realistically, those "trade route" couldn't be compared to maritime trade routes... if they even exist.
As said trading itself is soft-sf.

Anyway, you are clearly thinking in term of "expanding frontier", but there is no frontier in space. In Hard-SF the best way to pass by a system "unseen" is to move close to the speed of light making it impossible to match velocity if they even see you in time.

btw : you just reminded me a short story I can link you to about how a trader beat a pirate-planet who keep capturing his qualified-worker (the goods exchanged here). It went like this :
The trader could afford to have 1 ship on 10 be an expensive trap for the pirate. Himself he could absorb the over-cost but the pirate couldn't because he had no supply of qualified-pirate. (no infinite raider!)

Just to help keep the distinction clear (mostly for myself), in this sub-argument I'm arguing against the possibility of shipwreck in an uninhabited previously terraformed system between two more popular systems with terraformed planets.

Keep in mind that the goal of this argument is to explain the presence of space traders.

Setting up an intermediary world would indeed take time, and we definitely agree concerning the three-dimensionality of space. It would be much quicker to simply go from point A to point B, but if you have an area of interest "in between", then people might want to divert for more trading, (safer) refuel/maintenance/resupply, any updates on the current times (though even that news would be very old), and so on.

My point is, until there is such an incentive to divert from the simple point A to point B, it would be far too inefficient to divert for simple maintenance. The average distance between stars is four light years, so even if we assume that drives exist that take us up to .9 the speed of light, you're nearly doubling the distance traveled (assuming this in-between point is roughly the average distance away from both the start and the end). Even if your destination is only one star system away and there's another terraformed system directly "adjacent" to your starting system and destination system, that's a roughly eight light year journey rather than a four year one. It defeats the whole point in stopping somewhere else for safe maintenance when you could already be at your destination.

To make this argument (shipwreck in an uninhabited previously terraformed system between two more popular systems with terraformed planets) work and still have lots of space traders stopping by on the way, you have to have a theoretical start and end point with terraformed planets and another terraformed planet in a separate intermediary system in the same (nearly exact) x/y/z direction they're heading, which I'm saying is flimsy/unlikely. If such a system did exist, someone would make an effort to re-colonize it to control the rare trade route situation (which indeed isn't typical in space).

Now, we could claim that our colonists are part of this effort, but that the re-colonization didn't work as planned due to ship problems (meaning only a tiny fraction of the colonists survived). This is basically my stance in different circumstances, however.

Do you honestly think it's more likely that our colonists shipwrecked on this rare exactly identical x/y/z coordinate direction in-between terraformed system on the way from one terraformed system to a further terraformed system, after the civilization of this in-between system wiped itself out somehow, but before someone else re-colonized it? (Can I mention again how rare such a system would be in the first place?)

...

This is a very, very situational explanation, although it is possible. If Rimworld is a specific planet with a specific history, rather than any number of planets in a "Rim world" classification, than I'd be okay with such an explanation. If it is just "a" Rim world, however, then I object due to the sheer improbability of it.

Quote from: KegerenekuDisbelief is entirely based upon people knowledges of reality or fictional tropes. Many people don't know for example that space isn't cold, that you cannot "fall from orbit" with a measly explosion or many else.
Furthermore suspension of disbelief can be invoked intentionally for the need of the story. Considering that, I don't see a need to argue over superiority of pioneer over shipwreck. The LOST IN SPACE tropes is pretty well known and accepted and the blurred lore of Rimworld allow a wide range of possibility.

Our problem here was to find if we can make the trader better. The caravan seem to work, I think we could even keep it a ship, just not an interstellar/planetary one

Well... I already said we don't "need" to explain space traders since they may or may not even be permanent in Rimworld, certainly not to the point of getting upset, insulting, being passive aggressive or otherwise attacking a poster rather than their ideas. Since some still seem interested in discussing it anyway, though, I didn't/don't see any harm in it.

(Part two.)

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 20, 2015, 12:32:25 AM
I'm going to have to flag down the probability bit. There is too much unknown about the scenarios described to have that claim stick with nothing to really justify it. Countless stars, where you can't pick a direction without bumping into something, and yet it's arbitrarily, specifically improbable here because.. reasons.

Too much unknown about what scenarios? My scenarios? You can launch in any given direction and you will almost certainly hit nothing for untold thousands, millions, even billions of years unless you know exactly where your destination is. Space is called "space" for a reason. It's mostly nothing out there. As I noted above, even between star systems there is an average of a little over four light years (straight line) separation. Between galaxies, we're talking on the magnitude of a few million light years before you are even "remotely" (a few light year's distance) close, and even that assumes you're heading in the general correct x/y/z direction.

Even if your randomly selected direction just so happens to point you toward the general direction of the galactic core, meaning you'll have gravity to help keep you from leaving the galaxy anytime "soon" (a potentially favorable scenario), you could get pulled into the greater orbit of the galaxy, prolonging the amount of time it will take to reach a system toward further incomprehensible numbers (approaching "never").

Even going further, and assuming you somehow manage to select a direction that takes you through a star system, you may or may not come close enough to its sun to get trapped in the system, meaning that unless you manage to pass by close enough to get pulled into the solar gravity, even your highly unlikely scenario of actually making it to a system is all for naut.

It's not arbitrarily, specifically improbable here, in this specific case. It's specifically improbable period, in any case.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 20, 2015, 12:32:25 AMStatements like "We need reasons" should read more like "I need a reason", because the case isn't that the matter isn't justified, it's that you aren't satisfied with it. Which is fine. Just an important difference to clarify.

How do you justify the matter again? Trivializing my points rather than addressing them isn't really conducive to discussion, and it's promotes an unnecessary "me vs. you" scenario that I'd like to avoid. The difference isn't important to clarify; it's just the common "your opinion is an opinion" response that doesn't actually change or add to the conversation in any way.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 20, 2015, 12:32:25 AMAlso there's some odd consistency to run together. I find it odd that the 'improbable to run into' planet would be 'easily recolonized'. Particularly in the case that the colonists you start the game with are clearly not the first people to land on any given planet.

It is improbable to run into even a star system on the same identical x/y/z direction as another two star systems (that is practically reachable at non-FTL speeds), let alone a planet, which is much smaller. If it did exist exactly in between two star systems that were practically reachable at STL speed and all three just so happened to have terraformed, habitable planets, then it would indeed be (relatively) easy to re-colonize the intermediary one.

If you're referring to "adjacent" systems that aren't on the same identical (or very very close to identical) x/y/z direction, then they would need to provide proper incentive for someone to prolong their trip in order to stop by them on the way. It wouldn't necessarily be easy to colonize in such a case.

Quote from: SSS on March 20, 2015, 08:46:17 PM

[Text hidden for brevity, answered all at once for clarity]

There's no misunderstanding, I took for granted we were talking about what Traders event are or could be to discuss the whole subject all around. Making no judgment of value over the tropes/cliche that can be used to justify traders as they are, or alternative.

However, your arguments that "colonization attempt is more likely to" implied that it was more logical, since being more logical lead to 'harder' SF I put in perspective that using a more realistic logic/science it would not be likely (neither interstellar trading).... then that keeping the same soft-SF context, traders passing by rimworld, or planet in the process of being re-colonized can be seen as just as likely as each other.

The likelihood of anything in this fictional universe is subject to interpretation, pseudoscience and any logic one can find to support it.
If you insist on saying your interpretation is the only one likely, there's not point in this discussion.

My point being that it is absurd to insist trader must be private venture between a Colony and a to-be-colonized planet when the actual situation is no less unlikely but give more interesting backstory.
I infer that the question is less "it is more likely ?", and more "how can it fit the lore better ?" so as to not lessen Rimworld's potential by imposing a personal point of view to everyone.

On the "traveling in the middle of nowhere" :
I took for granted we had already established a valid idea "the rimworld is known and trader prefer to stop by for check-up anyway", I don't get what 'missing a planet's coordinate you are going for' have to do with anything.
Same vein, many SF tropes can also justify "the abandoned planet" tropes as well as "stranded shipwreck survivor".

But apparently not.
You are assuming a lot without considering alternative.

Btw, the (botched) 'colonization effort' count as a "shipwreck survivor" plot. All you need is a 'magnet' to justify manned spaceship to pass by, And we've discussed some already.
ex :
- If a spaceship drive is only reliable 10years, stopping by inhabitable stars 10y-of-travel make the difference between a 99% chance of surviving the travel and 50% risk of dying stranded in space because the spaceship drive failed.
- You could say that a ship that stop every 10ly can move at 0.8C, while a ship that only stop every 20ly wouldn't be safe over 0.5C.
Making the first one able to cross 20ly in 16y while the other would take 40y.
- Same with energy shield SCIENCE! Take the new shield that allow melee fighter, it would be good against space particle doesn't it ? Well, have such gigantic SCIENCE shield need to recharge every 5/10ly (again directly linked to speed)

Next : On the colonization subject and to answer your biased-question over likeliness, I insist you read the very interesting ProjectRho website (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellarcolony.php) which give us tool to justify what we want to achieve.

The core of this argument is that -unlike what you seem to assume- being a colony don't make you able to re-colonize anywhere soon if at all nor a necessity, and traders* (assuming they even make sense) can be anywhere if you get the right magnet.

What we know of Rimworld is that it put us in the year 5500.
In a radius of 1000ly we have like 1milions stars, if you want trading 50ly to exist at all (an aberration but let's drop that) you need to have 90% of them with at least one planet you can terraform.
Supposing the Homeworld started seeding by the year 2500, it give us 3000 years to 1) travel 2) terraform&colonize planet 3) prosper, decline or glitter.
At 90% of C a ship can reach 1000ly and still dispose of 1800year to do stuff... look a lot but not really.
# First Phase : Nothing say all ships departed from day 1, nothing say they aimed for close star first, nothing say they are homogeneously spread or started with the same technology.
# Second Phase : Terraforming can take hundreds of years, population need to grow before colonizing again, there can be war, dark age, mechanoid, psychotic boomrat event...
# Third phase : The planet might not prosper (who know the success rate ?), most might all die from plague, squirrels and many things (no trader for them), they might have lacked technology, they also won't get the ability to colonize in just a few generations, if they started with barely the minimum colonist/DNA-stock 2500 year is not much to grow above say 5 millions (And who know the workforce needed to send new colony ?), what if the population don't want to send colony ship ?
# Bonus : What if 'terraformer fleet/mechanoid' after finishing a job went to another stars ? We can find yourself with more inhabitable planet with no population than colony.

So yeah, Rimworld can be a damn entire category of planet if it want.

*On Traders :
A market need only 2 places that have offer&demand, meaning that hypothetically you can have trader between 2 barely developed planets/star system as long as it make sense for the trader.
You can also reconfigure  the 'traffic' to act like traders (my cargo ship example). What good is there to trade with underdeveloped world ? Mostly "scam them good".

So, to answer your biased-question...

QuoteDo you honestly think it's more likely that our colonists shipwrecked on this rare exactly identical x/y/z coordinate direction in-between terraformed system on the way from one terraformed system to a further terraformed system, after the civilization of this in-between system wiped itself out somehow, but before someone else re-colonized it? (Can I mention again how rare such a system would be in the first place?)

... I have my own question :
Do you honestly think in an universe with terraformed/colonized/abandoned/destroyed/glitter world, reactionless-drive, interstellar spaceship built by survivor, interstellar STL traders, mechanoid, psychic...
Do you honestly think it matter ?
I could ask you the same absurdly worded question about new colony and trader.
We are discussing a fictional world made of soft-SF concept that break fundamental law of physics, play the odds, and require to suspend our disbelief over the idea that colonization is about terraforming planet and living like Pioneers.

the edit of doom ! (nothing changed up there)
I only rediscovered now the Rimworld Universe Quick Primer (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pIZyKif0bFbBWten4drrm7kfSSfvBoJPgG9-ywfN8j8/pub).
It does change a number of thing in how I would have done my maths.
For all Tynan insist on not homogenizing planet by technological level he's kind of contradicting himself by declaring rich planet on the inside of the galactic core and the poor one on the outside.
Not that it would be possible to travel from the galactic core to the outside in less than 10 000 years
I'm thinking Tynan miscalculated the scale big time.
Guess, I'll have to speak of headcanon now...

Separation between galaxies and how long you travel before hitting something if you aim in a random direction are mostly functions of speed and what lies in the direction you are heading in. There are some averages to make, but these arguments aren't working off of averages, they are making awkward assumptions about specific scenarios that aren't particularly necessary and invoking incredulity. Not a well grounded approach.

Gravity isn't so much an issue toward the galactic core unless you're zeroing in on the core itself. That is strictly an issue of critical proximity. Probably not the best approach to take without knowing the subject.

There is no assuming that a direction will intersect a star system. It is only a question of where and when and, again, being trapped in the system is strictly a matter of critical proximity, which is orders of magnitude closer than is being presumed. Again, not best approach to take without knowing the subject.

For galaxies, yes, there is a massive time scale involved. For systems within a galaxy, traveling along the galactic disk, looking at a timescale of ~3000 years within a column less than a third of that range, it's more likely than is being freely presumed. It's almost inevitable if you're looking even halfway out toward the rim.

Sorry if you feel that your concern is being trivialized. It's just the case that you're assuming problems that don't really have to exist to make an argument that is only true for specific cases that don't really need to be. That isn't really a lore problem.

QuoteFor all Tynan insist on not homogenizing planet by technological level he's kind of contradicting himself by declaring rich planet on the inside of the galactic core and the poor one on the outside.
Not that it would be possible to travel from the galactic core to the outside in less than 10 000 years
I'm thinking Tynan miscalculated the scale big time.
Guess, I'll have to speak of headcanon now...

Avoiding a double-post.
I think you're misunderstanding. It's not that all worlds on the Rim are 'poor'. It's that there is drastic variation due to the isolation, compared to the core worlds.

I don't think so. In my precedent post I used a 1000 light-year radius because it kept many system around reasonable travel time.
If you wanted to see a difference in the distance between star you would need to stretch over way longer distance, in the order of 5000ly.
It's funny but it remember me a famous question from 'Foundation' (Asimov novel)

Speaking of misunderstanding, I would hope it to be clear that we shouldn't be talking anywhere of "accidentally" meeting a inhabited planet.
At any point we would be to assume that trader/cargo/transport ship voluntarily pass by inhabited planets rather than a straight line (and again, many sf trick can be used to justify that)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to knock you for the same reasons as SSS on this one.

The Orion Nebula is just over 1k lightyears away, and that's within the Local Arm.

If we presume the Rimworlds to be further out, as described, then we'll need to look at longer times. Interesting enough, I think Tynan had a good sense of this.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/OrionSpur.png)

You do open interesting and constructive ways of finding a new solution.
Stars disposition in the galaxy (be it a disk or a spiral) isn't homogeneous nor gradual, so some zone are more packed with stars than other.

But to be pedantic I still believe to be right that speaking in term of distance with the galactic core to use the distance between stars as economic incentive is meaningless.
The 1000 light-year figure was chosen to keep civilization within a credible time frame for different tech-level, and at cargo/trade distance (though the idea of STL trading is soft-SF). Also, it's not like we would be lacking of planet to terraform even over 100ly.

So it would be righter to dissociate Rimworld from distance to the galactic core and associate them with star cluster within a 1000ly radius OR (to take idea from 'Foundation & Empire') make it purely a question of -I quote Tynan- sociotechnological development.

In short : a Rimworld being a rimworld because it is has low population density, little to no government and see various technological level.

I help that to me there is nothing making unbelievable to have a poor Rimworld in between Industrial, mid-world or Glitterworld. (as Trade that take 10years of travel can hardly make a difference or be possible)
MANY justification can be made as to why the Rimworld didn't sprout a government or why other aren't interesting in (re)colonizing it.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 24, 2015, 06:34:38 AMYou do open interesting and constructive ways of finding a new solution.
Stars disposition in the galaxy (be it a disk or a spiral) isn't homogeneous nor gradual, so some zone are more packed with stars than other.

This is it. This is exactly it. This is why it's senseless to make such wide, sweeping assumptions about what must and must-not be. It is entirely possible to have a cluster of closer systems with many planets or a scattering of isolated systems with few planets, or anything inbetween.

The 'muh realizm' arguments fall flat because reality is unrealistic for many people. These arguments against the existence of trade ships is entirely dependent upon things that don't necessarily have to be true.

Tynan is still somewhat accurate about distance from the core, however. While it's true that the outer edges can still sport pockets of high density, the core is almost exclusively a high density region.

This is easier to visualize if you draw a circle near the center of a nested spiral and compare it to a circle along the outer edges. The bases of every spiral touch near the center, so you'll see the highest density. Along the outer edge, there are regions that are denser than others, but on average there are way fewer of them.

QuoteI help that to me there is nothing making unbelievable to have a poor Rimworld in between Industrial, mid-world or Glitterworld. (as Trade that take 10years of travel can hardly make a difference or be possible)

Not only is this reasonable, it's more likely than you think. For proof, you need only look at our Earth. Disproportionately poor regions inbetween larger wealthy regions? Woefully common. Even for places that lie along the interstate or railroad. Even having an airport doesn't save places from being poor, because economy doesn't magically work like that.

What I mean is that considering STL travel on a GALACTIC SCALE is absurd. And since I can quote Tynan saying : "Humanity is smeared across a region of the galaxy about 1,200 light years wide" here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUO3KKbAbTxMP1lqphnnodY0NPoOVblCUkDw-54MDUc/pub), maybe this is just an earlier draft or simple figure of speak.

Rimworld is a soft-SF space opera setting but since you could solve this... 'inconsistency' just by switching a few words double-entendre around in the universe description.

QuoteNot only is this reasonable, it's more likely than you think. For proof, you need only look at our Earth. Disproportionately poor regions inbetween larger wealthy regions? Woefully common. Even for places that lie along the interstate or railroad. Even having an airport doesn't save places from being poor, because economy doesn't magically work like that.

I think it's more likely than you think that I think. I do not usually take surface-based case to transpose them in space, the situation are too different.
My logic is simply that solar system in STL universe are indeed near entirely disconnected (as Tynan assume) and Trader would not (realistically) play a role in their economic wealth. But you can shape assumption to have traffic between world.

Enough of the arguing over the illogicality of this. There's something you guys didn't consider, a absolute, unquestionable benefit of this:

Trade. REQUESTS.

You could call, for instance, a tribe, and say, "Let's trade weapons." They send over a combat caravan.

ETC.

I agree.
We have pondered enough on space colonization and STL ship dynamic.
Myself I'm filling that under "Diplomacy" because I think Tynan will want a slightly more complex system than "If they aren't hostile with us, we can forcedly trade them things we don't need for their precious things".

Plus, who can trade what ?
Obviously a tribes wouldn't trades high-tech equipment, but can they trade gold and plasteel ?
Then 'Equal faction', even if they are expected to be bigger wouldn't have as much as "traders".
And which one might sell/buy slave ?

There's a thread about Ransom demand from Raider and prisoner exchange.

I don't have much further interest in talking about this either; I've been waiting a few days to muster the resolve/interest, but it still hasn't come.

@Kegereneku: My point was, in the end, that just because the game is soft from a sci-fi perspective, that doesn't mean everything else should be unrealistic either. One of the main benefits of a colony over a shipwreck is foreknowledge of your presence; everyone knows you're there already, which solves the wandering-by problem. I have no problem accepting another possibility if it's equally logical (within the soft sci-fi context, which doesn't make anything unrelated to science suddenly reasonable).

@Mathenaut: I don't claim to be an astronomist, but making blanket statements about how much I know isn't going to solve anything, especially considering you don't know for certain what I know. For example, I am aware that I was exaggerating (in your arguments favor) how likely gravity would be to stop you at near-lightspeed, since you do indeed need to be get very close. (I figured you could infer that where I mentioned flying through a system without "hitting anything".) I also know that the spread of systems isn't uniform throughout the universe, but given the time frame in Rimworld there hasn't been enough time to reach the galactic core, and even in areas where systems are "close", that's only relatively speaking. Even one light-year, or half a light-year, or a twelfth of a light-year is a huge distance. When talking about systems that could possibly support life, we're dealing with a diameter of light-hours- very, very small in comparison to the vast distances between even "close" systems, and very easy to miss. You could launch fractions of a degree off-course and miss such a narrow area, and hitting "something eventually" doesn't work because (1) it assumes the universe is infinitely large and that something "must", for whatever reason, appear in a given direction for some unexplained reason; (2) it neglects that STL travel would make traveling such a distance eliminate the possibility of encountering so much space civilization after landing, if a suitable place was perchance "eventually" found; and (3) such a distance isn't even allowed by Rimworld's timeline.

If you have no interest in discussing with me, then don't. I've already lost most of my interest in talking to you due to your method of response anyway (namely, attacking me rather than my reasoning). If you're that sure my logic is bad, then feel free to link to some sources that contain evidence that some part of my reasoning is incorrect, or that contain more credible minds talking about the subject; but don't just say "you don't know what you're talking about" when you don't know that in the first place and (for all I know) you might not know what you're talking about yourself. What Kegereneku has said to me, I say to you. If you are unable to accept that you could be wrong, there's no point in talking.

Keg, why wouldn't they be INTERESTED in high-tech stuff?

It'd be neat if tribes had a little "tech" stamp that determined their level of technology. If you sold them something advanced, like a personal shield, "tech" would go up several notches. Tech would determine armaments and available goods.

In fact, ALL groups should have techstamps and work like that... Add a new level to diplomacy/trading. Selling a gun to a tribe=awesome pricing, but they might start tinkering with it and learn to make their own... Basically, anything over the techlevel of the trading partner would have a chance to increase their tech level or progress them to increasing it.

Quote from: SSS on March 25, 2015, 07:00:49 PM
I don't have much further interest in talking about this either; I've been waiting a few days to muster the resolve/interest, but it still hasn't come.

@Kegereneku: My point was, in the end, that just because the game is soft from a sci-fi perspective, that doesn't mean everything else should be unrealistic either. One of the main benefits of a colony over a shipwreck is foreknowledge of your presence; everyone knows you're there already, which solves the wandering-by problem. I have no problem accepting another possibility if it's equally logical (within the soft sci-fi context, which doesn't make anything unrelated to science suddenly reasonable).

Well, my point is that within the realm of fiction you can make up enough likely scenario to make shipwreck no less unrealistic than colony.
You have been overestimating the wandering-by 'problem' as if it was a matter of absurd luck although it isn't and (as demonstrated) you can easily make realistic context that justify Rimworld known yet not being colonized.
On this, a colony have its own set of tropes potentially incompatible with what we've set to achieve, trading and Rimworld as defined here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pIZyKif0bFbBWten4drrm7kfSSfvBoJPgG9-ywfN8j8/pub).

I totally agree that a trade-to-colony can be made credible, but I prefer making a context logical for Rimworld's particular situation.

Quote from: hector212121 on March 25, 2015, 07:12:55 PM
Keg, why wouldn't they be INTERESTED in high-tech stuff?

Entirely true, my mistake.
I was just thinking that they wouldn't SELL you Glitterworld medecine or personal shield.
But then there's the diplomacy system needed to gain from selling medium/high-tech to tribes.
Next... I don't think we need to go into an actual arm-race with tribes. Not only it sound painful to code but you've got to let player an advantage over other faction.

Quote from: Johnny Masters on March 16, 2015, 09:45:53 PM

Quote from: ja7833 on March 16, 2015, 09:05:49 PM

"Hey guys my spaceship blew up and I managed to cobble together a radio using Gilligan's Island technology to contact you in SPACE but yeah... as much as I could use a new pair of your Calvin Klein hyperweave underwear to replace the ones I totally soiled in the crash in exchange for my silver and gold - can you swing by and pick me up instead? :o 

Don't worry, soon you will be presented a number of half-assed excuses for this obviously blatantly plothole...Ah, the things we ignore out of love   ::)

Here's what I think.

The trade ships are special traders manned by a advanced AI that goes around planets selling and buying wears(This is how I explain it buying the shoddy 14% stone shive I took off a raider. Even if they're buying for practically nothing, why the heck is it buying a obviously useless tool they'll never sell when they're better of saving cargo space?) This lets them trade at every planet they come across while traveling between destinations and still stay in cryptosleep and stay nice and not-as-old(or dead) Because the AI is only programmed to sell, it doesn't answer to requests like 'Take me off this damn rock'

Also, items are dropped by drop pod, and picked up by a long-range tracter-beam item teleporter thingy, instead of landing to pick up the goods. This probably means that the ship is not equipped to land on the planet, nor is the planet equipped to take in the ship(same reason why you can't ask a passing passenger liner to pick you up when you're lost in the rainforest. Where's it going to land?) The ship simply flies along near the planet in the comm's range, trades, then keep on going.

Finally, the traders don't know you. You could just as well be a group of bloodthirsty pirates who are waiting for the traders to land before you swoop in and kill them all and steal their goods.
I flip around on those theories depending on my mood

Anyways, it takes years, and even decades and centuries to do interstellar travel(as stated in game description). Crytosleep pods are a must. And I really don't think traders will have extra cryptosleep pods on their ship taking up space just in case they meet a poor sap who needs to be rescued.

But it'd be cool to trade with other colonies or something.

The only problem I see is that unless it's a spaceship from another planet, you'll never be able to get high-tech stuff like bionics or hyperweave, glitterworld medicine, advanced guns, doomsday/triple rocket launchers, etc. You are on a uncivilized rimworld with a low, low tech after all.

We can reuse something for that last problem : occasional pod crashing
Just like we crashed here ourself you could have the cargo from a wrecked Glitterworld cargo ship, or more realistically a less-advanced cargo ship carrying Glitterworld cargo crash or break in orbit with its pods coming down occasionally.
If the cargoship was big enough (to make it count for a 10year travel) you would certainly have enough supply for many years but spread over the entire world.

So at some point player will ask for way of exploring other zone, but that another subject.

Nothing to say about the rest, there's parts of logic I would use too.