Ludeon Forums

    Ok, so has anyone ever thought that it's weird that we seem to have some sort of "satellite", magical, I-can-see-forever type view.
    Well I have, and while Rimworld isn't a war game, I think it could definitely benefit from some sort of "fog of war", meaning you could only see what your pawns would see (not a cone of vision though, a whole circle around them would be visible)
    Also only enemy/animal pawns, items not in stockpiles, and land/buildings you've never seen before would be invisible when you have no sight of the area, along something like a toggle-able overlay of where you can and can't see, just so you know where enemies could be hiding if you want.
    Anyways, I wanted to know what other people think of this (and of course you tynan ^_^ ) so I created this pole.

Apparently it used to be in the game at one point but people didn't like it, so the dev took it out. Given the scale of the map, I can't say I'm really that bothered to be honest.

This is something that always makes its rounds ever couple days or so. The search tab is your friend, I promise. That being said, I think it should be a toggleable feature.

the search function yields a nice big huge ass list of non relevant conversations, and a single thread from 2013.. so i aint going any further back to ask these questions, im not interested in necroing threads, and im new to the community.

point is, why the hell did people not like the fog of war?? did they still get updates that told them stuff had fallen onto the map that they couldnt see(couse thatd be annoying) and or was it actually a part of the experience or just a tacked on extra(since it seems like its pretty old in development).

i just cant for the life of me see how fog of war and actual darkness in the game would make the experience negative, specially compared to the fifty thousand suicidal tribals or the sieges that arent all that good at their job --> hey boss, should we like, keep them in their home while we shoot at them... nah bob, well just hang out in our square of sandbags, theyll die eventual.. *SPLAT*

rimworld to me seems like it wants to create a sense of survival against the odds, your colonists versus the world an such... omnipotence will litterally never help that. So can some old timer explain to me why people found it infuriating?? was it just that the ai couldnt handle it?

Totally against it. Its your base/home and ur gonna know what's happening near and around it i.e the map size. The fog is on the outside of the map. If ever implemented to the map it would be a serious kick in the balls for the game and would have to be toggleable and also apply to enemies as well.

Given the scale of the maps, as someone else has mentioned above, I see little point in having it. However, I do also see how some would enjoy having it. It doesn't bother me not having it, but I wouldn't mind trying a few games with it. I'd say make it an toggle-able option, so players can either have it or not have it at their own discretion, should they desire a more immersive or challenging game.

i agree in regards to enemies, that creates better gameplay. but as to it being your home. sure you can certainly learn about the geography around your home(that would be removing the shroud if were gonna talk in the sense of a fog system. the shrouds the black stuff, the fog sits under that). but that doesnt mean you should be omnipotent. more important, why does that kill it for you though. you say your against it but your reasoning is basically just "because reasons".

an toggleable seems like a solid choice, but im still not getting the whole "little point in having it". for one, it creates a bit more of an organic map, less random squares. for another, it will lower the min maxing of a colony for the first few months an get people used to just setting up shop. importantly for me though, itll reduce alot of the hauling overhead by shedloads, and would allow the map to be a bit more organic. i seriously dont see downfalls... well, i see one. specifically sieges will be a shit to deal with, but thats why enemies should have to deal with the fog too. they'd have to actually spot your base before they start shelling. aside from that though*, this isnt really telling me why people dislike it?

*that though may be a big enough reason to not worry about it for a long while. ai is always a bitch, but im still curious

Eh. Given the current game mechanics, I don't really see the need. Some of the smaller maps are only the distance across of the range of a sniper rifle x2-3, and obviously people would have to be able see at least the range of their gun making the FOW basically pointless. Also, there is already a 'FOW' of sorts - areas that are closed off aren't revealed.

The last thread about Fog of War, 8 pages long, is here: https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=146.0
If you truly want to know what others thing about the issue, including the developer, read the whole thread.

Some people prefer mystery and surprising events generated by systems and emergence. Others, like Tynan, prefer randomly generated events through "director". They hit you out of nowhere and you have no chance of anticipating them.

QuoteThis discussion is closed until someone has something new and constructive to add to it.

I wonder how does the moderator recognize someone has new and constructive things to say if they can't post in that thread.

Fog of War is handled very well in Gnomoria:

• If it's lit, you can see it;
• If it's not lit, you can't see it.

This means that you really have lots of Fog of War at night, and almost none in the day.

It would make sense from a tactical standpoint to build lights around your base, so you could see an enemy's troop size.
During a siege you could wait for the night so the enemy's Fog of War can't spot your snipers easily.

These mechanics would be great for random events such as burglars, which would try to remain in the dark and steal your stuff. You'd have to counteract this by placing turrets less densely packed around the base or by placing a bunch of spotlights.

---

TL;DR

• Works in Gnomoria;
• Only affects night;
• Adds tactical decisions: turrets or lights;
• Allows burglar random events.

Some people on this forum agree with you quite strongly that FOW would be a great mechanic to add. I am one of them, and think on the list of "Things to maybe do" it is the most meaningful and feasible at this point in development. I would have much rather seen FOW implemented before joy (or at least some of its sources), for example, which for me takes the game thematically in a different direction than I prefer with my shipwreck-survival-"sims".

That said, it does seem the majority of the players that post here are only lukewarm or outright oppose in this type of mechanic - essentially because they dislike what supporters like about it. Whenever the topic comes up, the thread inevitable breaks down into descriptions of each sides' ideal game, with both sides talking past each other until it gets unpleasant/repetitive. Tynan seems to side with "them" - which is his prerogative and can't really be faulted, as its a huge style/taste issue.

Given all of that, it's a shame, but I don't think its worth wasting your efforts debating it further (especially only a few weeks after a similar thread was shut down) - better luck modding that in yourself, or finding a game elsewhere that scratches that itch.

im not here to debate it :)

im a designer, i like to hear the things that communities and people have to say. an Rimworld is an interesting thing for me to watch as it goes forward. its rare that i disagree with decisions that Tynan makes about design in regards to his game, so it surprises me that it seems that way on this. ill read the other thread.

having said that, im still interested to specifically hear what it takes away from the experience for individuals. im wondering if this is an occasion where sensible design doesnt necessarily feel right in play. it happens. Im also curious if its just that it isnt generally done in sims and people just balk at the idea of it. There is a darkness mod out there tries to jerry rig the game to work much like gnomoria does, but the systems just arent in place to do it well at the moment.

personally i still find it jarring to be omniscient, thats where i stand, and it seems to me that the overall design is trying to move away from that omniscience(locking doors an such) so i was just cursiou since this seemed like such a hotly debated thing

Edit: welp, i read that thread. its disturbing to me that a half dozen people argued in favour of a thing, and one angry person managed to belittle, derail and generally nay say them into having the thread closed down. thats outrageous, and the moderator was correct in shutting down that thread.

As such, ill add something constructive. Its clear the ai isnt capable of dealing with it at the moment. So, part of the objectives for implementing a fog system would have to be an overhaul of enemy ai(both siege and raiders, as well as visitors). that overhaul isnt a small thing, so i cant imagine this would be a week long job.  Follow on, it sounds like the only thing actively lost from fog is players being able to watch the world interact with itself. Thats not a small thing, but its also not a particularly big thing. the story RW tells is the story of the colonists, thats the one players care about. thats the one that should be interesting to watch.

So, we would lose a chunk of dev time, and the ability to watch the world interact with itself easily. However, i believe(an it seems alot of others do too) that wed gain mystery, a sense of actual danger and being alone. A lack of verisimilitude breaking omnicience, and the information overload will be removed. the feeling of working might even be lessened as players wont just be hauling everything ever. An hell, wed gain a smarter AI thats more interesting to interact with(which i am a big fan of personally). Theres probably more, but in balance, a fog system is a hell of a gain by my math. there's my constructive thoughts

I think fog of war is too much of an RTS element and detracts from the stories of RimWorld overall.

It's also not very balanced - raiders and berserk animals automatically seek/find colonists, while the player wouldn't be able to see them or attack them back if they're in the fog of war.

This isn't because you can add a feature or a level of complexity that it will improve a game.

Rimworld isn't a military RTS where one can produce scout and guards that stay idle indefinitely, nor sacrifice unit on a bad decision and still win thanks to the data gained this way.
Rimworld is a Storytelling game where you need all the help you can have to narrate the heroic and creative struggle of your band of survivors against various events, but to do that you need to see the events in question and be able to make creative plan.

FoW is one of those feature that aim to defeat itself : Your goal will always be to fight it off until you get a reasonable grasp of the map, for RW it mean "see everything that matter".
Lastly, FoW is also playing against creativity by inciting failsafe plan that won't result in your reloading a save 10 time because you lost a colonist without knowing what it was up against.

Rimworld is a storytelling game with no mystery, and no surprise. You see in advance everything that's going to happen unless it's spawned by a Director.

since im still trying to be constructive, lets try to address the rts thing. first off, you guys are rad, thanks for telling me how you feel even though the threads at risk of becoming a scary place* :D

second, your right. a fog of war implemented like it is in an rts would be a pain and kinda shit. This is because they have different goals. in an rts the fow is there to encourage players to scout and engage the enemy. since they dont know where they(or anything else) is, they have to spread out. it keeps the games economy working. Its vital to that economy in most cases. Its vital to really alot of stuff that rts's are built on tbh

See a trend, its not really about exploration, its about threat engagement. rts's want battles, and you dont get battles without players moving off in search of the things they need. RW though, is about story. the fog has to be built around different goals. That though, is possible. you seem to be thinking that the mechanic will always be the same even in a different game, but it cant be. thats not how system design works. you build the system to achieve the things you want. In Rimworld, the thing you want is mystery and the possibility that anything can be out there. you want the fog to encourage new stories. so it has to be less about being blindsided or covering up the enemies. it would need to be relatively forgiving, and not difficult to "defeat". it needs to be there in the background, a tool to aid the story, not a central theme. its the same premise as the costing overhaul that happened to the traders. that seemed like a really extreme response to the traders, but once you get used to it it actually made purchases be more valuable, more meaningful to the overall game. Same premise here. To me, the joy system presents some tools that can be used to help work with the fog(every morning people go for a stroll etc). same goes for the job system, since scouting and patrols could eventually be a thing. In the long run, a fog of war that exists and can be addressed will aid almost every aspect of the game.

Like i said, you're right that it could be shit, but i believe Tynan is a good designer, capable of overcoming that. So, what other concerns could be had about fow???

*if i see it become like that, if i see sides to this conflict being drawn up and constructive discussion being killed, im out of the thread btw

I will chime in, this is NOT a war game first and foremost. it is about survival, on a rimworld, a world that has already been explored and mapped, there is no reason for a fog of war. 

we have areas that are unexplored, until we find them, true to a mapped world. We do NOT know when the traders will arrive, or when a group of pirates will drop out of the sky, they all come from the unknown region above. 

We get information from the local tribes and settlements that eliminate the fog of war...

Fog of war does not fit with the back story of rimworld either.

I get where your going with that idea; but I think my statement still stands - the map is to small. There really isn't any way that the enemy could occupy an area of the map, and stay there long enough WITHOUT encountering the colonists to have FoW really matter. Basically when the enemies siege atm you normally have to restrict colonist movement so that they don't wonder into the range of the raiders. Normal raiders take only a few seconds from appearing on the map, to being at the base. I guess you could consider everything that exists off map to be in a FoW that you cant remove.

Also, once again, and because I believe that this is an important point - gun range. Look at the range of a sniper rifle atm - compare it to the size of even the larger maps - now for FoW to work properly, either A: the range of all guns would have to be dropped drastically so that colonists could see at the at max range they could shoot and not have the range basically extend halfway to the edge of the map; or B: (if you could shoot further then you could see) sacrifice colonists by running them into the FoW to reveal map while covered by sniper rifles meaning that by the time they light up the enemy, they would be in the range of all their weapons and instantly shreaded - the only way I could see around this is to do the standard rts thing and make a way for colonists to move while hidden (acting as a spotter), a mechanic that I don't think would work in this game.

when i've thought about this kind of thing (a small amount of time admittedly) I just thought that the barely functional wrecked core of the original ship is in orbit giving very basic sitrep data.  this also explains the random drop pods of materiel and people and even the crashed ship part if you really think about it.   fog of war would add a few mechanics but not enough to make the game more fun in my opinion.  let tynan add more fun mechanics first.. like a better ai and then we'll see..

the war game issue straight up isnt an issue. we have to assume a system like this that is implemented will support the initial design of the game. thus, it simply will not work the way it does in an rts. its not even be suggested as yet that it does, because rimworld is clearly not a rts and not intended to be one. Just because a mechanic exist in another genre doesnt mean it cant be changed, tweaked or otherwise made useful to any design, and presenting a mechanic as such is not useful as a constructive discussion. we know you dont want an rts, otherwise youd be playing starcraft*

next point. the thing about weapon ranges, is that the scope is abstracted into the weapon. people dont run around looking through their scope. so that creates an interesting situation where you actually want to position a sniper so he can then look through his scope.. meaning suddenly snipers are an interesting part of the design and arent just some other gun. In fact, lets be quite honest here. while there is a bunch of nuance to combat design in rimworld, its still lacking.. alot. Most weapons of a ballistic variety simply feel like different forms of the same gun. so any mechanic that helps to flesh them out more and differentiate them more and apply more choice to the game seems like a gain to me, and also makes your story more interesting(since thats the part we are supposed to focus on in the overall design). Additionally, LoS will support melee much more. since i expect ammunition is going to be a thing at some point in this game to make melee more viable, giving it a bit of a boost by allowing ambushes to exist seems particularly important.

that of course brings us all back to a specific problem. the AI atm is garbage. as far as i know Tynan has already identified this as something he wants to fix, so considering that, now might be an excellent time to actually revisit FoW in context. Its simply not feasible(or interesting) to have either the players or the ai be omniscient, so fixing one necessitates fixing the other. An the thing is, we cant fix the omniscience of the player without some way of obfuscating the map, regardless of how you want to fluff the inital mapping. You are, currently, able to plan around any problem. You are given notifications that inform you not only of the problem, but where it is. You then can plan around it. Your colony(and the story of it) suddenly becomes this contrived sequence of events where they knew exactly where the sieges were, or the beavers, or whatever, and they immediately planned around that problem and ended it. I agree that with the ai making every colonist a lemming,t hat FoW right now would be shit. However, we know the ai needs work, and i think it would be better to incorporate fow into that rework. For both stories and gameplay.

An just so we are clear, as yet no one has actually provided a solid justification for why FoW is actually bad. Theres lots of hyperbole, and apprarent fear of change in these responses, but you need to put that away and try to actually refine your answers to why it would be bad for the game in the long term. Yes, there are no systems in place at the moment that support FoW, because at the moment it doesnt exist. that doesnt mean they cant, so the question is why would it be bad long term, or why would it be good. I feel ive provided strong reasoning for why its good, but as yet the answers for its bad are as follows:

(paraphrasing of course)
->because i like having a map and feel that losing that would disadvantage me
->because other games did it and i dont like them
->because i simply assume the game will not change and just randomly strap this new mechanic on top with no thought whatsoever.
-> because i feel that limiting my vision will somehow fundamentally change the stories that RW tells.

those are kind of not great reasons to not do a thing folks, or more specifically, they arent very well reasoned. There's merit in the last one, but it still feels kind of hyperbolic, and it is a problem that is actually quite simple to design around. So, acknowledging that, is there anything more nuanced we can say at the moment(acknowledging of course that we cant know for certain one way or the other without something to actually test).

*side note, id like to point out that the first terran missions where you are playing with jim raynor as space cowboy remind me a lot of rimworld, in the sense that they try and convey that tone of being alone out on the edges of space... plus the soundtrack was super appropriate :D

Quote from: rexx1888 on April 19, 2015, 10:49:00 PM
An just so we are clear, as yet no one has actually provided a solid justification for why FoW is actually bad. Theres lots of hyperbole, and apprarent fear of change in these responses, but you need to put that away and try to actually refine your answers to why it would be bad for the game in the long term.

Reasons it can't be like classic wargame FoW have been provided several time in this thread.

This is not a long term problem, this is direct short term incompatibility with what Rimworld is now, and meant to be later. To make FoW work you would have to force in all the mechanics that allow the player to survive in STR game (equivalent force, scout, guard, radar, keep the OP turrets...etc).

We can't assume that adding "Fog of War" to Rimworld will be a gain, just because. This would be like assuming "successfully adding Car Racing to Rimworld will be an interesting gain" and not detract from its point. You also simply can't have even a limited "X-Com Tactical combat" as an optional features.

Rimworld is focused on storytelling & characters, not tactical wargame with raider.
So the objective is to improve the storytelling component, events and FUN interactions from the player to shape his colony in whatever he want. A secondary objective is to lessen of the "Tower Defense" encouraged by Killbox.

What does a player do when a Raid happen ?
- He goes to see who is attacking and how they can.
- He plan ahead, depending on the time he have left.
- He scramble his survivors to face them the way he planned.
- Once the enemy is here, hell break lose and the plan get killed by a stray bullet.

Supposing a "classic" Fog of War :
(edit : by classic I mean, you see the map but not the raiders and (their) items)
- If you aren't told the enemy is attacking (and supposing the alert come once one of your colonist see an enemy), you won't have the time to react unless you scout/guarded ahead.
- If you need equipment to see the enemy, you'll just spam those "camera" or your "scout" will need binocular/sniper to not be killed/captured (note : real snipers need spotters).
- If the raiders are smart enough to bait you on one side and attack from another side, this is just worse than "Raider dropping on top of your base" as you have 2 force to fights at once but no time to survive it unless you tone down both force.

So a "classic" FoW would only reduce the speed at which you can take action and the time you have left to take action. By making it very hard to know what you are facing it will add frustration when it turn out you needed a different plan but no time left to even try. And by making it much harder to take any proactive measure (especially outside the base) it will punish you for not holing yourself in a killbox.

In term of storytelling a "classic FoW" would be a disaster.
Even if you kept FoW from impeding other events it will become impossible to know if a Raider have been attacked by the fauna/flora, or if they finally aren't so ready on fighting you, are they psychopath ? empath ? You can't even tell if they are sleeping without having a scout.
All in all you are discouraged from attempting any crazy plan.

Rimworld's Raider combat AI is.... lacking yes. But FoW will not solve the problem, on the contrary it would be a patchwork that require the raider to never get too smart or you would suddenly be up against impossible odds (in turn forcing to get rid of FoW or reduce Raider force).

Now to play devil advocate,
you could have SOME events deliberately hide information from you in a purely exceptional event, ex : a single assassin is attacking, the game don't let you know where he is unless the colonist see him.
But it must be though in term of storytelling, not wargame tactics.

To be honest, reasons that FoW isn't comparable to "wargames" and - most commonly referred: a blizard-like rts game, have also been provided, if not in this thread, at least in the several preceding it.

Most people bashing FoW thinks, for some reason, that it will make the games focus more on the tactical warfare aspect, while it can very much mean the opposite: dealing with less nauseous and repetitive invasions and more on the psychological aspect of not having omniscience and most likely having the whole man vs nature way more predominantly than the non-existance of it now.  I don't know for others, but mxn is very important for me in a survival game, be it a fps or a management-builder hybrid.

Likewise, we can't assume that adding FoW won't be a gain, just because. This would be assuming that "being unable to see enemies through walls in battlefield would be bad because i feel lost without having everything shown to me". Yes, fog of war happens in fps too and pretty much any game where a player struggle to obtain information in a possible hostile environment.
--

The only two pertinent cons of FoW would be its development time and possible extra micromanagment. For the first, i think it's worth the investment, for the latter i'd say some thought must be made to indeed not become a click fest. But i see no problem with setting guarding and patrol zones/waypoints and let it be done automatically, saving special instances. Afterall, this is a management game and security is a management issue as well, i don't see why the rancidity on this specifically.

Then we get stuff like fear of losing control and incapability to accept loss. As we all know, save scumming is a bad habit that instant save-load gaming brought us to feel the need to always be in control. I'm not going to say how people should play their game, but losing a fave pawn because you screwed up or because of chance is not bad design or because FoW doesn't or shouldn't belong in the game, it's a player's inability to cope with loss and letting it go. Not knowing what is out there brings anxiety, which, again, is a feature, not a problem. In good stories good people also die.

Finally, there's people saying that FoW won't add to the stories, which i can't agree because there wasn't even an exercise in thought to at least come up with something. It's impossible that FoW won't bring any new stories, the discussion should be on which give us more stories.

just some random stories:

Day 1. Planetfall - No FoW

Quote"We crashlanded on the planet JM-524c, the surface and local climate is similar to earth tundra biome. Our scans mapped the whole area and we pinpointed the perfect location to estabilish camp, it has a chockepoint for possible defense - should it come to that - and is close to some good resources. Our scans shows some animals and our hunters know exactly where to hunt for them. Thankfully to our sensors, we know where to get wood for some basic infra-structure and to keep us warm. Our built-in wrist omni-tool shows constant area surveillance, should any hostiles come in the vicinity we will know instantly. A word of thanks to Weyland-Yutani for these omni-tools, we'd be having really harder otherwise!"

Day 1. Planetfall - Fog of War

Quote"We crash-landed on the planet JM-524c, the surface and local climate is similar to earth tundra biome. We didn't get a chance to scan the area and our omni-tools is no good here without sats...We are blind here. We crashed in a open area and we scrapped some of the fallen resources. We decided to make camp here for today, but tomorrow we should find a better place, because despite some bushes with a few berries there's little food here and our rations wont last forever, so we need to move asap. Luckily, Bill was doing a little reconnaissance today while we worked on a small hut (god, wish we had the technology to build tents) and he saw lots of footprints in the snow, some kind of quadruped animals, food! We should be moving north tomorrow, following those footprints. I hope they are prey, not predators. Definitely not going south, we heard some nasty growling from the woods that way. God help us all"

-
Day 249 - "crashtown" colony - No FoW

Quote"Today morning we finished our third outer walled sentry slaughter-hall. Since hostiles always come from that direction and our omni-surveillance tool gives constant feedback, we can work ourselves out in whatever we want - We are making a little fortune here! and have no worries, except for those pesky orbital drops, but those are not so bad lately. A few hours later we received our raid #43. As usual we followed standard procedures and went to our designated posts. Since our omni-revealer gives constant updates we really have no surprises there, so we allocate people to stations as needed. To be honest, at first we had a lot of fun watching those assholes through our wrist-tool screens doing dumb stuff with random animals or just shooting each other...But nowadays is kind of just ok. I mean, it's still fun, but we've seen the same shit over and over, and cleaning up all the mess later is boring and disgusting. But i really gotta say, the zoom capability of our wrist-tools are darn incredible, i mean i can even see what kind of wounds those fuckers have or even their thoughts and personalities! Well, gotta go, another crashed resource batch fell on quadrant C-12 and guess who's fetching it? At least i know it won't happen anything to me. God bless technology"

Day 249 - "Crashtown" colony - Fog of War

Quote"We finished building our outer wall today, hopefully it will stop things like last month's accident with julia and that damn lizard thing coming out of nowhere. Morgan is still researching better scans so at least we'll know if something is moving toward us, i hope it gets finished soon, because he stopped working on those farming improvements to working on the scans. Anyway, I've seen the prototype, should raiders attack us their movement pattern will betray their positions and we could prepare. Sometimes they are just visitors, but you never know, have to always be careful in the frontier. That's why Ross volunteered to patrol duty last month. Everyone knew he didn't want to but everyone knew he was the best for it. We could use another hand in the farms or at the walls, but we simply cannot be blind out there, specially after those raiders started appearing, and there's the fact he even brought a deer last time. Sometimes he gets to see (and his wrist-tool feeds it to us, thankfully!) them raiders fighting animals or other raider-folks, it's really fun actually, seeing them shoot each-other for a change...Well, sometimes he just stumbles upon some battle remains, dead people everywhere, we just wonder what might have happened and place a motion-rod there so we get an alarm going. Yeah, we also loot the bodies. Life in the frontier baby"

--

As i wrote on another FoW thread, i think we should focus on what good comes out of having or not having fow brings, instead of battling for the negative ones. I'm much more interested and find much more fruitful to hear from neutral people or from people that provides examples of stories we can build with each "side" instead of hearing naysaying from both sides. But then, that is just my humble opinion.

As for me, i already know what not having FoW brings, and i'm not impressed.  Now I'm just trying to find out how much better FoW is over the limited stories omniscience brings. Unless, again, people provide more positive examples of it.

Lets go people, be creative ;)

We can't discuss this if you just ignore half of the problem. Features always have good and bad elements that negate entirely the goods. Since we are keen on analogy it's like asking to focus on the good side of dying.

So we must accept that the 'FoW' features can be worth or not worth adding.
Rimworld not having FoG won't make it inferior in any way, or incomplete as a video game. However having needless complication that impede other feature is always seen badly.

We have to analyze Rimworld, propose how this FoW-inspired feature might fit, and see IF it actually improve the gameplay most players expect of Rimworld. But if it turn out you cannot integrate such "fog" without hijacking the gameplay or breaking creativity, then you've got to accept there's no reason to have such feature.
The best would be for someone to make a mods that can test various form of Fog/Veil of uncertainty.

QuoteLikewise, we can't assume that adding FoW won't be a gain, just because. This would be assuming that "being unable to see enemies through walls in battlefield would be bad because i feel lost without having everything shown to me". Yes, fog of war happens in fps too and pretty much any game where a player struggle to obtain information in a possible hostile environment.

Indeed, but if we keep the analogy going remember that a FPS usually give you the time to react to the suddenly appearing threat and a trigger ready to fire 'solutions' at that problem, and yet in many game you can get headshot from nowhere without ever feeling satisfaction.
Were Rimworld to regain FoW it mustn't make you feel like you are being swarmed by enemy coming out of nowhere with no alert, no chance to actually fight, no chance to avoid loosing a pawn through your skill, and no room to plan as you like.

Fighting this "loss of control" is the real interest of FoW, more than the ambiance I would say.
You aren't having fun with the sentiment that you'll fail at the slightest bad luck you can't avoid. You are having fun seeing more than the others, which suggest that the Raider must also obey the same rules, making precisely Rimworld the RTS we don't want it to be. It also explain why FoW would need to be accompanied with a plethora of scout/guard/patrol/radar most of us don't want.

Let's consider a PRACTICAL EXAMPLE :
The enemy is approaching from multiple direction and you can't see them. One of your colonist spotted an enemy, you go micro-manage it and make time pass to see the result. HOW do you do if another colonist away is being attacked by insurmountable force while you are looking away ?
Do you have the game automatically stop time every time a new enemy get in sight ?
Do you let the time pass and have a colonist get killed by enemy you didn't knew were here ?

That's the recipe for saves scumming : unfair death of colonist and colonist dying without you knowing if his death was in vain.

About pawn death :
Myself, I accept a colonist death when (1) I see that I have still achieved a lot (2) it would take time to try to do better with no certitude of doing better.
The above can only happen if I am informed of everything that is happening on the map, and if I have the margin (from information gathered through omniscience) to try achieving something EPIC.

QuoteFinally, there's people saying that FoW won't add to the stories, which i can't agree because there wasn't even an exercise in thought to at least come up with something. It's impossible that FoW won't bring any new stories, the discussion should be on which give us more stories.

Actually the argument is that FoW won't add new interesting things to the story. Not just new thing.
Because myself I'm not interested in 20 new story that all end by "...then my colonists were killed by new Raider/Tribal/animal I didn't saw" nor story telling me you just found new cadaver of raiders with no idea who killed them, if one of them got crazy, if they were actually hit by your mortars, if they starved...etc

Aside, a bad storyteller is a tellers who ignore everything outside his own characters actions, and a bad game-design is when features depend entirely of blind luck to be fun.

YET, as I said I won't just bash the idea without at least imagine ONE case where a semblance of FoW fit. (although I don't believe we need FoW because the map can be big enough to functionally do the same)
On my precedent post it was the "Assassin" : A lone enemy event that do not appear on except to colonist, and let's say it can even open door. The goal in term of interesting gameplay is to force you to have all your colonist stay together and mount guard until you killed him.
The idea also apply to hypothetical "predator" events.
To follow on your story about finding food : We don't need a fog for that, the map can be so large you can actually miss those. I once suggested a purely visual dirt that would make it harder to YOU to see them, thus reconnaissance effort would be on YOU, THE PLAYER. Much more fulfilling in my mind than having a colonist walk for days in search of ration rather than working.

Of course, this isn't so much (persistent) FoW than (temporary) surprises.

Not sure I should step into the middle of this. Here goes nothing.

I think limiting of visibility in some fashion is an interesting idea for RimWorld. And, that there are two big unknowns in the current game that make articulating anything like a coherent suggestion (or suggestions) about it an impossible exercise, i.e., one more about faith and personal desires than Ludeon's vision for RimWorld.

 
• The maps are just too small to pick an approach to limiting, even if we made the assumption limiting would be good. This likely a symptom of scaling characteristics of the prototype architecture and so will likely change. That's not a criticism, this is alpha after all, just a point that we'd be making calls based on a critical data point we don't know, i.e., typical map sizes in the final design.
• There's not a robust storytelling concept visible yet. Until there's some meat there, some conceptual framework for us base our ideas on, I don't see how we can offer helpful thoughts on any large, experiential concepts like limited visibility (as opposed to incidental details, like item quality filters in the user interface or making snowmen.)

Personally, I think uncertainty (nagging doubt, panic over the unknown, and nasty surprises) is an essential element of a great story. But, what we can see and have to play with now is essentially the mid-section of the game design--drapes and furniture without a building--and that's just not enough for us to turn a debate about something that's really part of the design foundation (the first principles) into informative suggestions for Ludeon.

I don't really see the point, however if it was in I would like to see it only at night time. The point about stuff being lit is cool.

Also, not that total black fog of war that covers terrain as it would make establishing a base at night super annoying.

Mostly however I'm kind of against it in this game. Its nice to see everything thats going on for once.
...
OR! have a new build able console which lifts fog of war at night and is a power hog. Now that would be cool. (they can trade with orbital ships after all)

After rimworld is finished maybe Tynan could make the "Rimworld FOW Edition" because it would be a almost a different game. Not worried about change and yes I'd try it and yes it would add some new features but it would also remove a lot of the features its got now. So atm I say No.

none of you have me convinced that FoW is actually bad. I mean, im convinced alot of you are really great at obfuscating a discussion and turning it into an argument, but your actual cons are either blessings you just havent thought through very well, or else non existent issues. Take the premise that FoW is bad because it adds more to the game. Thats literally what was said a few posts up. Thats ridiculous. Thats possibly the silliest thing ive every read in a forum about a game where things are built, because it literally means "oh its bad because ill have more things to build. how dare you give me more things to do". Or the comment about how an FoW RW would just be a completely different game. Thats hyperbolic, but completely disingenuous. Of course itd still be the same game. You all keep arguing like you would be playing RW starcraft edition, but thats just stupid. You dont just bolt a whole new mechanic onto a game in development. You design it, integrate it, and then tweak it. Every mechanic works towards the same goal.

As such, let me paint you a basic FoW that would enhance the game, and not piss you off. First up, assume the ai has been fiddled with. Your colonists now have basic self preservation instinct. When they see someone with a weapon, they try to work out if its a friend or foe, and they run from foes. They even zig zag, try to hide, or shoot back. The enemy ai has also been tweaked. It can no longer see the whole world, so in order to attack a colony it first has to scout locations(so it cant just pick the weakest spot, or beeline straight to your home). Or, it may not even be an atttack, and may simply be an enemy force moving through a locale(different event). Assume a whole raft of other quality of life ai stuff has been done. Basically, if you think to yourself "but the ai cant deal with blah" just stop and think it can.

So, the Obfuscation itself. I personally like a static overlay. so not even fog. i like that better because then weather effects like actual fog still exist and dont get confusing. I also think there should be a shroud over the fog(the black terrain blocker, but ill be negating alot of the annoyance this has for you all in a few sentences). Id lock all maps to be the same size, and make em massive(so theres actually places to explore. It may need a bit of work to have the map maintain itself, but if its not looked at by a character, it doesnt need to render an can probably be made to be rather light on the processor), but id get the storytellers to actually drop events that are beneficial kind of close to some LoS. So colonists dont have to explore too far to find them. Then, when our colonists turn up, id have a big chunk of the map around there starting spot revealed to the player. So they have some room to make decisions. In terms of the static, i would have it close back in really slowly. like a day or two would pass before it got to the point where players cant see anything in an area. Id even have it move in in stages, so at first its only a little staticy, and then a little more etc. We do this because we want to make slow burn tension on the player. We dont want to jack up their anxiety in minutes, thats just shitty. We wouldnt have the shroud move back in. its actually just there so players can see where they have never explored before. Its not there to annoy, but to inform. We also give our colonists a relatively large site radius... during the day. At night, we narrow it down heaps, and bring it in close. Make it link to light sources at night. Basically, during the day the game wouldnt actually play much different to the way it does now. There might be a few more jobs colonists can do, but the fog itself isnt there to fuck around with the day to day running of a colony. Hell, we dont even let the fog move within a certain radius of the players home. It'd be really weird for the colonists to forget they have a shed just because they hadnt been there in a day or two.

quality of life things, we make the planning tool more nuanced. We let it track notes, and also track different commands like mining or harvesting. An we make sure its nice an clear over the static, so even if the players lose sight of terrain, its really easy to see what they might like to do out there if they planned for it. Another thing id do is maintain the current notifications, but make it so that once its clicked, it takes you to a position somewhere near where the thing happened. Id probably remove some of them and tweak them, but once again the goal here is not to make the players life hard, just more interesting.

Finally, as to jobs and items. Truth is, not that much needs to be added to this system. Its not designed to kick players, its there to help them. As such, you would only need a security job. The hunt job would get changed a bit to make colonists go off and actually look for game, and they would have to prioritze bigger better game as they got better at hunting(so they wouldnt shoot squirrels when they could shoot elk). The security job would probably be a whole new bunch of stuff much like the timetable and the outfitter was for update 10, in that you would have the ability to set up patrols that colonists might follow, or else have them man some variety of console that has security consoles linked. Thats literally all that would need to be added. Other things could be added, but they dont need to be. No radar, no scouts. The only iffy thing is if you would want a dedicated explorer job. But that would just need some poking.


now look, im sure your looking at that design and trying to poke holes in it, but you need to stop. Its rough, i smashed it out in five minutes. That design though would work. An it wouldnt fundamentally change the game, or add too much stuff, or be too hard on the player, or make them have less reaction time or anything like that. It would basically make the game play like if you were on a small map currently, right now. BUT you would suddenly not be on a small map. there could be things to find out there. Interesting stories an other such things. Suddenly, theres an actual sense of discovery in your game. An it wouldnt be a shallow sense like civilisation, because the world itself would change. Sure, you dont see the raiders kill the tribals, but you might miss that right now in this game. What you will find is the scene of a massacre, and maybe  some carrion eaters. You gain lots of things you dont have right now, and if you're gonna be really close minded about what you can gain, then i have no idea why your playing a game called rimworld where you play as random colonists out in the far side of the galaxy trying to survive in whatever way they can.

I'm not a fan of the tone from either side, although in principle I support the pro-FOW camp. What I find interesting is there is now a majority that appear to support the idea OR tolerate it, contrary to in the past. It also highlights that just because one can write long posts doesn't mean they represent the community.

Quote from: Kegereneku on April 19, 2015, 05:50:49 AM
This isn't because you can add a feature or a level of complexity that it will improve a game.

Rimworld isn't a military RTS where one can produce scout and guards that stay idle indefinitely, nor sacrifice unit on a bad decision and still win thanks to the data gained this way.

Baldur's Gate isn't a military RTS game either. Pillars of Eternity isn't a military RTS game. Maybe they lack storytelling or something ?

Quote
Also, not that total black fog of war that covers terrain as it would make establishing a base at night super annoying.

A popular solution to this is sending people to beds.

Quote from: rexx1888 on April 21, 2015, 03:20:43 AM
none of you have me convinced that FoW is actually bad. I mean, im convinced alot of you are really great at obfuscating a discussion and turning it into an argument, but your actual cons are either blessings you just havent thought through very well, or else non existent issues.

IMO you are the most obfuscating one here. We've given pretty clear example of things we don't want FoW to bring and pointed out the bad things inherent to FoW while you are being all "stop saying things I don't like, you are all lying, you don't understand, FoW can't be bad !".
I must give you that here you explained lengthly how you imagine it.

Quotenow look, im sure your looking at that design and trying to poke holes in it, but you need to stop. Its rough, i smashed it out in five minutes. That design though would work.

If you post something, it will be judged on its own merit.
We won't ignore the flaws and pretend it would ultimately be great just because you say so.
You have to accept that no matter on long you try, you might never make it worth, the point of discussing it is to seek a consensus on what we like and what we don't want.

Video games aren't made by simply adding as many features as possible regardless of how they fit.
The same way, having more things to build just for the sake of having more things to build don't make a game better.
If Tynan somehow added any "improvement" suggested by anyone (like colonist needing to take a dump) you would be begging him to cancel them.

Now, before "poking hole" (or rather give you a feedback on your suggestion) let's see I can summarize it :
- Your idea prefer a gigantic map (what size ? bigger than 400x300 ? how much ?)
- ...so that zone-of-sight be increased up to make it no different from what it is now (except at night).
- ...and so you can actually explore (at day of walking range ?).
- The "fog" stay cleared a day or two, then the player cannot see item and animal again.
Combat-wise...
- You want security-job and patrol, that's quite the big important change most don't want. Rimworld isn't meant to be a war camp simulator.
- You want Hunt to be more like full-time-job hunt. (like taking the whole day to hunt I suppose ?) again, big change, many players like hunting only when they need it, and considering how you can order it easily you don't need to make it a job.
- You want Colonist intelligent enough to wage war. (Drafted of not ?) Myself I think we just need notify&time-freeze when a non-drafted colonist is harmed.
- Next : your Raiders must do recon to see your base : do you intend Raider actual base (temporary or not) on your terrain, or for "recon event" to happen before an attack ? Once again, this is RTS line of though.

Is all the above correct ?

My opinions :
So far you are only adding a repetitive hassle to force players to scout for the sake of scouting. A waste of time that require a colonist full time. If until now you though you were lucky to survive, with this FoW you'd need blind luck just to find resources & hunt. You'd be punished for not being lucky.
Then you have to admit your suggestion only make sense if you intend to turn RW into a strategy game where you need patrol,scout, hidden shooter to defend or attack enemy position.
Once again it will discourage from trying creative tactic to deal with events, and encourage failsafe solution because you have no leeway.
And if you lose any Pawns on a patrol/scout mission, you can be assured that we will reload the save.
In term of Storytelling this sound like my feared disaster : you can't see shit except your colonist, can't make story about how two enemy fought each others, can't see who is passing by your colony, can't see if there's herds of animals unless you are lucky, it make pointless to even think about events that don't happen where you can see it.

If I over-analyse, you real problem with RW is that you feel confined and want to explore.
I say you don't need a gigantic persistent FoW field for that and suggest you better alternatives :

- Simply wait for Tynan to upgrade the AI, once the AI get smarter you won't need FoW to spice things, just seeing them going around your failsafe killbox and murdering your plans should be enough thrill.
- Only have "dropped resources" hidden once, once the items are revealed they stay as visible as they damn should be.
- Same for raider, only make a no-see fog around them, once.
- ask for an alternate "Draft" where the Colonist still go eat&sleep, add the timetable and you'll have your guards-jobs.

As well as suggesting variation of "travel/exploration" topic, it have more potential.

Quote from: akiceabear on April 21, 2015, 03:53:48 AM
I'm not a fan of the tone from either side, although in principle I support the pro-FOW camp. What I find interesting is there is now a majority that appear to support the idea OR tolerate it, contrary to in the past. It also highlights that just because one can write long posts doesn't mean they represent the community.

So far the lack of support and worried comments about "not wanting to patrol and such" that came in every thread is saying that many won't tolerate any form of FoW.
I can and did write my own "FoW-like" ideas, but because there's some dreamers who will claim everybody support their own "better because global" fantasy we need some lengthy criticism to point all aspect.

Quote from: b0rsuk on April 21, 2015, 06:29:12 AM
Baldur's Gate isn't a military RTS game either. Pillars of Eternity isn't a military RTS game. Maybe they lack storytelling or something ?

And Rimworld isn't a Combat RPG either. Maybe you lack good analogy ?

I'm not saying Rimworld can't hypothetically profit from a feature akin to FoW. I'm warning that most implementation I imagine could wreak havoc in how Rimworld is played to the point of making not worth.

Remember that Tynan already disabled at least one implementation of FoW (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=146.msg1986#msg1986).

Quote from: Kegereneku on April 21, 2015, 09:45:32 AM

Quote from: akiceabear on April 21, 2015, 03:53:48 AM
I'm not a fan of the tone from either side, although in principle I support the pro-FOW camp. What I find interesting is there is now a majority that appear to support the idea OR tolerate it, contrary to in the past. It also highlights that just because one can write long posts doesn't mean they represent the community.

So far the lack of support and worried comments about "not wanting to patrol and such" that came in every thread is saying that many won't tolerate any form of FoW.
I can and did write my own "FoW-like" ideas, but because there's some dreamers who will claim everybody support their own "better because global" fantasy we need some lengthy criticism to point all aspect.

I was referring specifically to the embedded poll, which shows a relative majority support a FOW implementation. Just because a handful of posters are extremely vocal (on either side) doesn't mean the majority of players agree with them.

Edit: Also, I stand by my statement a few pages ago that the divide between the two camps is unbridgeable. I'm fairly certain there is absolutely nothing that could be said to convince you that FOW fits well, nor vice versa. Anti-FOW hate the idea exactly for the reason pro-FOW like it. It changes the scope of stories that the game can generate, with is a pro or con depending on what kind of stories you like to experience/control.

Yeah, i was about to write a lenghty (don't worry it would be a polite one) answer, point by point, but really it all boils down to:

QuoteAnti-FOW hate the idea exactly for the reason pro-FOW like it

A lot, if not all, of the anti-fow argument is a feature for pro-fow, so it's really a moot point. Might as well just focus all this undirected energy to provide positive arguments for their own side *hints*hints*
-
Only argument I don't really get is what are all those stories that would be missed with FoW? The only one that is repeated ALL the time is watching raiders interacting with the map, which boils down to attacking fauna or other factions. This is maybe 1 or 2 stories, not several. It gets old, at least for me, and FoW doesn't prevent, just delay these sort of story or requires exploring.

What else is there in terms of story making that only omniscience gives? (that's a real question, not rhetorics)


P.S.: At this point in rw's development, i think it's far more beneficial to discuss "how" would FoW be implemented and not "should it?"

Edit: actually, its a benefit for the community more than RW dev. stage. Its hard discussing the should if we cant discuss the how without it turning into flames

Quote from: akiceabear on April 21, 2015, 11:20:19 AM
I was referring specifically to the embedded poll, which shows a relative majority support a FOW implementation. Just because a handful of posters are extremely vocal (on either side) doesn't mean the majority of players agree with them.

I understand, but making a Poll that give meaningful answer is harder than it look.
In our case for example FoW have been presented as a Binary choice and the poll do not address the how important we would accept FoW to be.
So I'm betting many player here voted in term of "interest" to compensate for the lack of alternative implementation. There's also a predictable offset in that open minded player will rarely say no to the potential of getting more (they all hope that Tynan will ultimately make the idea fit right)
And finally there's how Poll can be biased.

Quote from: akiceabear on April 21, 2015, 11:20:19 AM
I'm fairly certain there is absolutely nothing that could be said to convince you that FOW fits well, nor vice versa.

This is not true.

If we go by the classic definition of FoW in wargame as a global persistent fog, no, IMHO it simply don't fit Rimworld.
A "Fog of War" is a game mechanic is usually meant to force you to fight it to maintain a statue quo in fast paced game where loosing sight make you vulnerable to an intelligent/constantly looming enemy. It is also used to encourage exploration...for resources and empire expansion.
Rimworld is slow paced, event are rare burst of activity you don't want to miss any moment, enemy are custom-made challenge that a fog would only make frustrating, and as exploration go, since your base/territory won't grow indefinitely suggestions to explore outside your colony yield more potential to improve the game.

On the other hand, If we go toward more reasonable and very very localized "veil of uncertainty" that are goal-driven around the cores element of Rimworld like storytelling...
Then I gave idea for a "Stealthy Assassin event" that can also be adapted as a "Predator event" (so localized you can afford a true line of sight detection)
I gave a way to go check drop zone without the needless inconvenient and hassle of a full persistent/reappearing fog.
Following the same logic you could have to "confirm" the identity of any "raid force" once.

I consider those ideas fit the game with as little modification as possible, none of it require specialized scout/patrol, none force repetitive hassle upon the player, and they make sure to not blindly impede storytelling potential.
And YET, those ideas are susceptible to not interest players who don't want to have to dispatch a colonist to check any damn cargo drop and prefer omniscience and they would be entitled to their opinions.

Quote from: Johnny Masters on April 21, 2015, 12:01:00 PM
What else is there in terms of story making that only omniscience gives? (that's a real question, not rhetorics)

Okay a special : storytelling/ambiance-related things that will be impeded by obtrusive FoW.

For starter when making Events (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=9755.0) (which pretty much make the game) a FoW would make pointless to even think at making event that don't happen where your colonist are.
Ex : if you had planned to have two factions fight on your territory for example it would require a "scout" to reach the place in time to see it, and waste more time if you want to intervene.
The problem stay even if you are notified and given hint on the place it happen (notice which defeat 80% of the reason to have a fog in the first place).

Obviously there's the "Once per game" scene that you would love to see and remember for discussion on the forum. aside I just realized it must be useful for debugging

Globally, it concern everything you can take interest in (including for fun/storytelling) but are not notified of. (and since even a 'patrol AI' can't make relevant report, needing a patrol would only make it harder)
- If you have entity/groups wandering by the colony for various reason, and you want to interact with them it will take time to see what happen, gather your pawn and intercept (to say : invite to drink a beer), so best avoid a scouting hassle that fundamentally only make you waste time.
- Any information on enemy, ally, animal. We don't want to consider them just as "meat" right ?
- Knowing what an AI is attacking first, so you can guess if they actually got around your defense of it it's luck.
- Visitor/ally/enemy loosing items while passing/fleeing away from your colonist.
- Visitor/ally/enemy getting lost in fog (who said you had to be the one blind here ?)
- avoiding potentially important items meant for storytelling getting damaged/stolen because you can't afford making a important colonist into a mindless patrol drone just to know it was here.
- if a stampede of Buffalo pass, why hide the spectacle ?
- There's a Migrating herd and you don't want to need scout/patrol/lucky blind hunter to know.
- Animals starting to eats food from recent drop pod or simply doing animal-stuff (could be relaxing to watch while your colonist work their ass off)
- If a psychic probes is making all animal fight each other, you'll want a global view.
- If a psychic probes (what if yours ?) is making raider/visitor insane, you'll want to see it even if they are away.
- If there's heavy terrain/climate change (agreed FoW proponent usually agree to see the terrain)
- If there's a predator lurking around and you don't want it to depend on a "must kill" Events you can prefer to be able to check on him without requiring a constant scout/patrol
- Poisonous gas around geyser (seen indirectly on animal getting sick)
- Invasive flora, like carnivorous flora (Feed me !!!!) or just plants growing around your installation.
- Invasive fauna, (not notified because they are natural/not too dangerous) like say beaver cutting tree.
- possible abandoned trap (seen only by the player, not the colonist)
- Visitor looking at a statue you put far away from the base for reasons.
- Raider getting killed trying to steal a trapped statue you put far away from base.

Last with an important aspect : combat tactic
This is not just "combat stuff", the tactic you try/use have a relevance in how you want to write your story. If you aren't given the information and time you need to attempt plan like "attack at night" you won't even try.
Right now the AI is dumb & focused on mindless destruction, but if it was smarter and less predictable, omniscience could be not a luxury, nor a cheat, but a required balance.

Do you guys know when FoW was introduced and when was it removed? I mean: in which versions was it included? I'd like to try it.

You can try to find the version from the time Tynan posted this message (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=146.msg1986#msg1986) and the changelog (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_rCdGYp3nbSUXFG4Ky96RZW1cJGt9g_6ANZZPOHyNsg/pub).

Myself I arrived after FoW was already removed.

I do find it interesting that one of the arguments that the anti-fog advocates make is that there will be stories that are missed if you aren't omniscient.   I, for one, find that most of the stories they describe are already missed unless I have a colonist near by.  Perhaps this is just because I play on large maps, and if you play on small maps it doesn't matter.  It is far more likely that I will find dead bodies from a conflict between external factions near the edge of the map than I will watch it, unless one of my colonists happen to be in the area.   In fact, in a recent play through there was a small mechanoid contingent of one centipede and one scyther guarding a small group of cryo-pods that I purposefully left alone hoping that someone else would take care of it.  Despite being interested in such a conflict, I only noticed that one had happened after the fact because of the dead bodies lying around.

I suspect that much of the FoW disagreement comes about because of different play styles, and that, as others have said, this is really an argument that will not be resolved through discussion and convincing the other side through rational conversation.  A working version of FoW that can be balanced is likely the only means of convincing people, either because it works or it doesn't.  I suspect that such a thing will only become available via a mod, at least until such time as a mod that add FoW is so successful that The Power That Is decides to incorporate it into core.

Via the change log:

QuoteManhunter animals will not attack doors. They’ll hang around just outside the door. This is trained in a tutor note.

(speculation) This makes me suspect Tynan may revisit the FOW mechanic in a coming alpha.(/speculation) Alternatively, this scenario is pointless. In my view the above scenario provides a great story, although most of the umph is lost via the eye of god approach. Imagine instead that your pawns wake up, open the door and are startled (perhaps into a real panic/mood) when they see the wolves outside - and you as the player are just as anxious before opening the door! The player being able to anticipate that because they observed the animals outside for 4 hours already (while pawns slept) makes a huge difference in impact.

To me that's simply Tynan making raptor animal incapable of opening door as it should be.

I don't see any 'umph' in your story, a random chance to get a colonist mauled to death as he pass a door isn't interesting. You aren't in an Action-Horror FPS reacting in the instant, at best you'll get the notification "Colonist need medical attention", pause the game and check who got unlucky.

And I say that as the one who suggested a "stealthy assassin/predator" event (with a special rule) earlier in the thread.

The WONDERFUL Eye of the storyteller is what give all the tension to this event.
To quote the king of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/728496-there-is-a-distinct-difference-between-suspense-and-surprise-and) :
“There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two."

In our case, seeing there is wolf around and wondering when, if they do, one will attack your colonist, is the tension. You'll be continually torn between keeping all your colonist safe or letting them work, never knowing if suddenly the pack of wolf will change course.

And what if a colonist was outside when a Wolf pack event start ? If you are blind, you'll simply ask him to get back ASAP in straight line hoping he don't meet one. With the great Eye of the storyteller you can SEE if the wolf pack will intercept him and have him stop, run away in a non-ideal direction until you can prepare a rescue party. (which if the survival was based on blind-luck, would be pointless)

At all time the player will be interacting and not suffering from bad game-design.

Even my "Human Assassin" event work best when it is the only time where the enemy is invisible.

For me, the main thing is that FoW would require A LOT of developer time to work properly, so much that it would only make sense to invest this much time in it if Tynan were to be convinced that FoW needs to be implemented as a core feature of RW.

I don't see it happening, so I think modding is probably your best shot at ever having FoW.

Quote from: akiceabear on May 07, 2015, 09:39:56 AM
Via the change log:

QuoteManhunter animals will not attack doors. They�ll hang around just outside the door. This is trained in a tutor note.

(speculation) This makes me suspect Tynan may revisit the FOW mechanic in a coming alpha.(/speculation) Alternatively, this scenario is pointless. In my view the above scenario provides a great story, although most of the umph is lost via the eye of god approach. Imagine instead that your pawns wake up, open the door and are startled (perhaps into a real panic/mood) when they see the wolves outside - and you as the player are just as anxious before opening the door! The player being able to anticipate that because they observed the animals outside for 4 hours already (while pawns slept) makes a huge difference in impact.

as much as you think fow is needed, this does not portend anything about fow. It just means that the animals will not stand there and attack the door while ignoring the colonist in the hallway shooting at it. the animal will attack the colonist only now. much better.

I know I'm a newcomer, and I apologise for butting in to this, but I really don't understand the argument that's going on. I would assume that any FoW mechanic would be something that one would be able to activate at the point of choosing a story teller, not that it would be a mandatory condition for all game starts. If so, there is no reason to take a dogmatic stance against it.

Personally, I love RW for the base-building more than the combat, so I would be very unlikely to choose to use FoW in my games, but I see no reason for it not to be included. Or, if it is an option, I'd quite like to see it as off by default on Phoebe and Cassandra and on by default on Randy, since that seems to suit.

I suppose, the real divisions are two-fold. Firstly, you have the base-builders, for whom combat is one of the necessary obstacles to their creations, versus the strategists, who see the creation of their base as one of the necessary tools in their conflict - both seem to have reflexive stances on the principle of FoW, almost as if it is a moral decision that must be resolved. Secondly, you have those who really feel the need for an ending or a target and those who are more than happy simply to potter along, until they get bored or have a brainwave, and don't care whether there is a sense of completion or not.

I'm sure, eventually, some form of FoW will be introduced, and I will welcome that additional feature as I welcome all the others. However, I don't believe that, at it's current stage of development, RW needs FoW more than it needs other aspects of the game tweaking. I'm sure that many of those who are eager for FoW will agree that their gaming experience will be improved to a greater extent through things like improved AI and better use of melee rather than simply flinging a blanket over the fighting as it exists now.

When it all comes down to it, there are fundamentally different ways to approach RW, either as a combat game or a sandbox builder. I suspect that most players fall into the mess in the middle and love the game all the more for it. For me, it's to the credit of Tynan and everybody else who is helping realise this game, that RW can appeal to both camps and that it can provoke such impassioned debate.

Sorry, I'm a sententious git at times.

Frankenbeasley, your opinion is justified and understandable if you think FoW is a feature that is "easy" to code. In fact, Tynan had some form of Fog of War early Alpha that was removed since then (or more precisely only limited to previously unseen indoor and map-area-hidden-by-mountain).

No one will berate you for thinking that. We are precisely here to debate the opinion of each other..
For example : Opposite to you and as stated in details since here (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=12366.msg124938#msg124938), I consider any form of "classic Fog of War" to be something much more complicated and intricate than any mere "On/off feature" and even fundamentally incompatible with Rimworld.

So it stand to reason that I would not encourage adding a feature that would harm the game (including by making it into something utterly different)

Woah, sorry not answering before, i had totally forgotten this topic.

Have in mind that my answers below are not meant to antagonize or put you in the wrong, it just reinforces what akicebear said regarding what anti-fow people consider a bad thing being a feature for pro-fow people.

Quote from: Kegereneku on April 21, 2015, 05:55:34 PM
Okay a special : storytelling/ambiance-related things that will be impeded by obtrusive FoW.

For starter when making Events (which pretty much make the game) a FoW would make pointless to even think at making event that don't happen where your colonist are.

That's the first and foremost argument against fow that is constantly brought up. While i agree at a certain degree, i must bring to attention, again, that FoW doesn't negate or extinct any of those events. It might, at most, delay or provide an obstacle, but never prevent.

The events described in the post of the link could, in its majority, work exactly the same under fow, and some other could work with a few peculiar differences, not to mention the others that could happen specifically because of fow.

Then, even if you are not able to watch or interfere with events, the consequences are there, and if people feel the need to absolutely watch every single thing that happens in the game (which is impossible even with omniscience) and feel cheated for not observing it, then i guess fow could be perceived as bad, but really, it's not like you don't get the opportunity to watch the same events regularly.

Quote
"Ex : if you had planned to have two factions fight on your territory for example it would require a "scout" to reach the place in time to see it, and waste more time if you want to intervene.
The problem stay even if you are notified and given hint on the place it happen (notice which defeat 80% of the reason to have a fog in the first place)."

That's because the game just throws events without warning or prompts. Even with omni you might not have the time to intervene, specially with large maps. The thrill of FoW is managing what sort of risks you want to take and how far you're willing to scout that scene, and since this is a management game, these sort of decision making interests me.

Then, you have the fact that you can overcome FoW and no, overcoming FoW or giving notifications/cues doesn't equal making it redundant as much as starting with a pistol and getting a rifle later makes the pistol so, or having a wood fence being replaced by a stone wall. Starting with no idea of your surroundings and living on a wood house and then evolving to a large walled colony full of sensors and cameras doesn't erase your earlier strive to achieve this stage, on contrary, it make it so more relevant.

QuoteObviously there's the "Once per game" scene that you would love to see and remember for discussion on the forum. aside I just realized it must be useful for debugging

True, but i gotta be honest and say that everything is "once per game", and most of the cool stuff happens within view or your own pawns, and random battles are not rare, so it's really not novel after some time, specially if you have a few colonies under your belt. I guess this is just personal taste so there's really no arguing here, you might mind it more than i do so there's just that. Regarding debugging: maybe you can disable FoW for that?

Quote"- If you have entity/groups wandering by the colony for various reason, and you want to interact with them it will take time to see what happen, gather your pawn and intercept (to say : invite to drink a beer), so best avoid a scouting hassle that fundamentally only make you waste time."

Good one. At least two ways to handle this:
FoW approach: imagine you are in this colony in a hostile world and then friendlies come to visit you. Do you and your friends just go about your business or you keep eyes on these strangers? You can go about your chores an leave them be, interacting as you go (not sure if in a10 they still hang in a single area?), but losing sight if there's no one around. But then that's a security risk. Or you could keep someone watching them, some sort of hosting job, drafting or patrolling (like patrol/guard a pawn or area). But that's an economic risk. Again, decisions. It might seem like a chore, but remember that it's a management game, and some people like these kind of decisions.
Lenient approach: Simply all visitors share LoS with you. You see what they see, at least after they reach your "hang out" area.

Quote"- Any information on enemy, ally, animal. We don't want to consider them just as "meat" right ?"

Surely wouldn't want that! But i'm sure you could see those informations once they get within sight (pawn or sensor). Again, overcoming a disadvantage is part of the fun, at least for some. Automatically knowing all there is to know about every single creature is boring, imo.

Quote"- Knowing what an AI is attacking first, so you can guess if they actually got around your defense of it it's luck."

Again, that's another challenging aspect of fow, not a bad thing. You could send some people there after a fight to see how they got past, most probably there will be a hole in the wall and some other wall could be damaged, prompting you to increase defense there or even put some people there next time. You don't "waste" time checking it out, that's part of the game. Also, knowing where every enemy is coming and going is what makes battles predictable and bureaucratic "oh, thats raider wave #17, cool i guess". 

Quote"- Visitor/ally/enemy loosing items while passing/fleeing away from your colonist."

I guess it happens. I wouldn't feel cheated by not acquiring something that was lost, specially if i didn't put effort in it, such as seeing an enemy with a nifty weapon fleeing towards a direction and not sending anyone after it, but i sure would feel rewarded if i found stuff by indeed having people look for it, or a hunter finding it by chance.
It's not like FoW prevents this for happening, it justs makes it more challenging, which is a feature not a problem.

Quote"- Visitor/ally/enemy getting lost in fog (who said you had to be the one blind here ?)"

Yes! That would be cool wouldn't? I mean, if we could lose people, the AI should be worked to lose us/each other as well. Perhaps a tracking system could be implemented, in which pawns (or pawns with a tracker trait) had a chance to follow footprints and some terrains would make following easy, others not so much.

Quote
"- avoiding potentially important items meant for storytelling getting damaged/stolen because you can't afford making a important colonist into a mindless patrol drone just to know it was here."

Not sure about the existence of such items, at least of yet, nor if items can be stolen, but i'm sure we can think of ways to prevent such story-items from disappearing. Then again, losing or getting them damaged is an story itself, and a pawn patrolling isn't anymore mindless than a pawn growing stuff or crafting. I don't get why all the hate on patrolling besides not giving a palpable result, if security isn't one. Well, i guess some might be annoyed by having to manage one extra thing, but adding patrolling isn't any more wrong than if in RW we didn't have to take care of growing and feeding our pawns and then growing and eating was introduced in a patch. It wouldn't be any more wrong than adding patrolling, except for personal reasons and preferences.

Quote"- if a stampede of Buffalo pass, why hide the spectacle ?"

Not that this game is any skyrim but i get your point. But then, like in skyrim, the beauty imho is seeing things as you go. So perhaps every 6 months a herd pass by the same area, you might get warned or prompted by texts or perhaps game cues like sound and footprints, then one time you decide or happen to watch one (or you finally get your sensors to open the area). The extra effort, imo, make it more impactant. Again, FoW doesn't prevent the event, just makes it more challenging.

But sure, i could only agree with you that, if this only happened once, then it's something that we'd lose by having FoW, but I don't see why herd migrations should be a one time event.

Quote"- There's a Migrating herd and you don't want to need scout/patrol/lucky blind hunter to know."

Similar to above, only that i'd add: If you don't need, then don't bother, although the question should be "why aren't we hunting the herd?".

Again, you're not wrong, it's personal taste, but for me there's no novelty after you see the same event two or thrice.

Quote"- Animals starting to eats food from recent drop pod or simply doing animal-stuff (could be relaxing to watch while your colonist work their ass off)"

I agree with you on this one (who says we have to disagree on everything right?), although i got to point that LoS might reach enough for you to experience that, perhaps not as much. Then, early game (in my mind) should be tense enough for you to care more about survival rather than relaxing watching animals (like hunting said animals), and a larger established colony could/should have means to increase LoS or reveal the area so you enjoy just as you did.

Quick reminder: FoW doesn't prevent such events or behaviors, they might at best challenge or delay it. Overcoming LoS doesn't erase what you had to fight until you overcame it, it doesn't make FoW obsolete or redundant.

Quote"- If a psychic probes is making all animal fight each other, you'll want a global view."

Meh, never cared for that, or even remember seeing it, but i guess mileage may vary. Either way, the above applies here aswell.

Quote"- If a psychic probes (what if yours ?) is making raider/visitor insane, you'll want to see it even if they are away."

Yes, if people want to have everything in control and perfect (see what, how and why the enemy is doing without putting effort), else you could send people there, or apply the above.

Quote"- If there's heavy terrain/climate change (agreed FoW proponent usually agree to see the terrain)"

Not sure i understand. Yes, usually FoW allows for you to see terrain or at least keep it after being explored. Terrain and climate changes should be felt with or without FoW? I mean, surely it takes effect in the whole map.

Quote"- If there's a predator lurking around and you don't want it to depend on a "must kill" Events you can prefer to be able to check on him without requiring a constant scout/patrol"

Avoid AI behavior could handle that, or behavior settings, such as aggressive, defensive, coward, etc. Such as set your gatherers to run from hostiles on sight or to change path so to avoid it (which is something we need with or without FoW), and hunters to shoot hostiles on sight.

Then we can have novelty stuff, like tracking guns or sound cues. Or we could manage them, which is way Tynan set a low population count for the game.

Either way, if you know there's a dangerous animal lurking and don't take precautions, then it's on you.

Quote
"- Poisonous gas around geyser (seen indirectly on animal getting sick)"

Not sure i understand that one. I don't see how FoW prevents that.

Quote"- Invasive flora, like carnivorous flora (Feed me !!!!) or just plants growing around your installation.
- Invasive fauna, (not notified because they are natural/not too dangerous) like say beaver cutting tree.
- possible abandoned trap (seen only by the player, not the colonist)"

Not sure how FoW prevents any of that. If the plague/fauna is encroaching on your stuff, you should be able to see. Noting that the entire map is suffering from that only after it reaches you (which should be rare, because there's hunting) could make for some ompf story "all hands on plant cutting, NOW!".

Don't know about traps (is there traps now?), but if the colonists can't see it i don't see why you should. I mean, why would any other game out there that have traps would show it to you? Isn't the point of a trap to trap you? Unless of course the pawn perceive the trap, then it either don't activate it or it warns you.

Quote"- Visitor looking at a statue you put far away from the base for reasons."

Well, it could be a camera statue! Or visitors could share LoS, as above. Either way, FoW doesn't prevent that from happening.

Quote- Raider getting killed trying to steal a trapped statue you put far away from base.

I guess those statue traps (didn't knew they were a thing) could provide a small LoS. Or it just adds to the challenge that FoW provides. "Hmm, i'd better check that trap, see if someone activated it... Oh, there's the corpse, yep it activated alright, i hope you don't mind parting with that rifle mr."

QuoteLast with an important aspect : combat tactic
This is not just "combat stuff", the tactic you try/use have a relevance in how you want to write your story. If you aren't given the information and time you need to attempt plan like "attack at night" you won't even try.
Right now the AI is dumb & focused on mindless destruction, but if it was smarter and less predictable, omniscience could be not a luxury, nor a cheat, but a required balance.

FoW or the concept of FoW (such as a FPS game where you don't know where is the enemy) doesn't so much prevent you to do stuff as much as it makes you work for it. With FoW all options are open, they might not work, but they are there for you to take your shot. Omniscience not so much. Would you send a single guy after 10? No, you'd pick 5 guys with snipers and pick them off one by one. If there's a guy flanking around, you prepare for that. Everything is laid out for you and you only lose if you're bad at math or get a bad luck roll.

Now, that may seem like extra effort or that it would only work against players, but it really doesn't. I mean, sure with the current A.I and raiding frequency and amount FoW would make it unbearable, but should it be implemented i'm sure the game would be rebalanced around it (which is why a toggle on/off is not the best of ideas). The A.I could simulate being lost as much as you, although i can see why it could be a hard programming task. Hard, not impossible and not unworthy imho.

Then, the challenge of betting on a tactic and the rush of executing it is the thrill of FoW. "It's night. Do i send a scout? Yes. Ok i found them and they haven't noticed me. Do i shoot a couple of them and run or do i go back silently? Do i spend the night watching them until they start attacking or i get him back to give him rest? Do i arm my other pawns and mount an assault or do i wait in the safety of my town? Will it be enough? How many should i send? How many should stay? Who? What positions?" These are the sort of decisions that while do happen to certain degree with omni, they are devoid of any real conflict, they create somewhat predictable stories.

I can understand why some people who are more attuned to the building aspect of the game could be put off by this more intense experience, but that's why there's director's like phoebe builder and challenge %, and there's no shame in that, but that's hardly a problem with FoW or FoW not matching RW (which is not true) than personal play style. Btw, these different playstyles the game attracts is a peculiarity of rimworld, being such a hybrid and in early development it really is "deciding" what to be, which is why we have so many and diverging suggestions popping around. But that's a digress.

QuoteThe WONDERFUL Eye of the storyteller is what give all the tension to this event.
To quote the king of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock :
�There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two."

In our case, seeing there is wolf around and wondering when, if they do, one will attack your colonist, is the tension. You'll be continually torn between keeping all your colonist safe or letting them work, never knowing if suddenly the pack of wolf will change course.

And what if a colonist was outside when a Wolf pack event start ? If you are blind, you'll simply ask him to get back ASAP in straight line hoping he don't meet one. With the great Eye of the storyteller you can SEE if the wolf pack will intercept him and have him stop, run away in a non-ideal direction until you can prepare a rescue party. (which if the survival was based on blind-luck, would be pointless)

Although you bring a good quote, the comparison is not applicable: Hitchcock is talking about movies while this is a game. You can show and pull suspense in a movie because the audience can't interact, nothing they say will stop the monster to appear or the plane to explode.

Omniscient rimworld Has no suspense, only surprise and only for a short amount. Once an event starts it's usually an instant surprise  at the edge of the map with plenty of time to react in the best of manner. There's no "your sensors pick up a large amount of raiders moving your way" and then them showing just a day later. No, people just pop in.
There's no build-up, only raw tension, as yourself said it. . It's just math= "With my speed and that wolves speed, can i reach safety? It's not bad, it's just devoid of any suspense or dread.

FoW, on the other hand, provides both. If you think it does not, just think that FoW in games provides an experience closer to real life than omniscience. I mean, we all have felt suspense and surprise in our lives, haven't we? And we surely aren't omniscient.

Sure, if you only get owned by wolves out of nowhere, that's only surprise, but i'm thinking all sort of cues and clues could be given. What's more iconic than wolves howling? If there's wolves howling then there's wolves around. If there's wolves around then they could attack you, uh-oh! You could even "hear" the direction of the sounds, approaching you.  They might get to you, or they might not!

Phew, that's it. That's a long ass post, i don't blame people for not reading it. Anyway, have in mind that my detailed response isn't personal nitpick antagonizing, as some previous people have taken it, but just reflects my interest in the subject and duty for the interlocutor.

< Message & double post erased voluntarily >

...this post was way too long, and is way too... targeted. Pointless to read for everyone.
I'll post it in private

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 09, 2015, 04:20:24 PM
Obviously here I expected you to go all nuts about turning Rimworld into a wargame
My colonist AREN'T soldier, and if you say I'm not "working hard" to defeat raider in the current Alpha I should say : "Go f*ck yourself condescending idiot ! I'm playing a bunch of survivor not a Para-military army. And who are you to talk anyway ? It could be only by luck the storyteller let you have the right equipments and right pawn to fight weak enemy ! Go make a X-com Mod if you want it so much !"
But politely I'll only imply it and say that to make it work (which obviously is the only point for you to have FoW) you need the whole setup of a Wargame or it will only be (more) luck-based.

Uhh. You need to look up the definition of imply...

But yeah this topic will probably get closed - you guys are just making personal jabs at each other, and then saying 'and everyone wants it this way' when the only information that you have is a forum poll with 40 results (considering the game has sold tens of thousands of copies that's really nothing at all).

...Sincerely, I think I'll just erase my post, and do it in private.
I went overboard.

Yeah, you went a little. Actually i read it and was about to post my response so no need to send a PM. Alas, I never meant my detailed response to be regarded as personal jab, nor did i write with that in mind.

Either way, I'm glad we didn't "went through" this. If this gets closed or not lets keep it civil at least.

Don't worry, I didn't take it as such.
Read it carefully, my points against Fog of War are no less valid (and not) personal, I just made the answer much too detailed, and it's repetitive with what I already wrote.
But then again, ideally people understand your point the first time.

I'm going to throw in on this here, but if i step on someones foot, be assured that its nothing personal and i accept that everyone has their own opinions...  its not MY fault your all misguided  :-*

Ok, On the Fog of war....
I think its dumb and its always bothered me in RTS games that I can look out my window here and see Pikes Peak Mountain 30 miles away. If i go to Denver I can still see it at 100 miles. For a game to try to tell me that at 500 yards i cant see a hill or a tree or that big assed mountain looming at less than 5 miles? That's just.... dumb.
I can look at the mountain outside my window and see the various dips and spikes with ease, and i know that the dips are probably where i would find a passable area at. To think that I have to walk along the entire mountain to know that there's a dip someplace there is.. well.. dumb.

Now while I might not know where the animals are or if there is someone wandering around on the other side, but i DO know there's a mountain there, right?
Secondly, the colonists were on a passenger liner going past a known planet.. I presume that it had windows or view-ports to see the planet. And they came down in a drop pod which i assume has some visual capability. To think that they all came down and then 'forgot' what they saw is stretching things a bit.

As you can see, logically there is no reason for a FoW environment, simply because they are illogical, treat your colonists like they are morons, and serve no true purpose for the game.

As for 'Limited FoW', which is not being able to see people or animals that aren't in your immediate vicinity, I could give 'some' support for that.
However, If there is a band of 20 enemy pawns setting up launchers across a valley a mile away.. I can SEE them, but the game claims i cant because of 'FoW hiding' even though they are in direct LoS (Line of Sight).
If they are on the other side of a mountain, then sure.. I would see the logic in that.. at least until after the first could rounds fell... But then of course they are on the other side of a mountain so HOW did they know where to aim?

Implemented into RW, i think that FoW would just make the game kinda suck... It would breed more fear and paranoia and make you focus on what you couldn't see rather than on trying to make your colonists survive Landfall.

A little story from my most recent colony that I think fits pretty well with this discussion:

Randy had been giving me lots of tribal raids, but very few pirates, and most of them were the melee kind. As a result my colonists had a distinct lack of automatic weaponry. With raid sizes increasing and me not confident in my ability to fend of a group of well-armed pirates I decided to make the acquisition of better weaponry a priority. I figured the space soldiers in cryptosleep caskets usually have some decent weaponry and I should have enough assault rifles and SMGs to take them out, so why not try my luck at it? A breaching party was assembled in front of a nearby structure, with an SMG and assault rifle posted at the flanks while a brawler with energy shield was tasked to deconstruct a wall section, ready to retreat or charge as necessary.

When the wall collapsed however, I didn't find myself under fire: instead the room was filled with half a dozen corpses in various stages of decomposition. A quick inspection of the health tab revealed a large number of bruises from human fists. Furthermore, some of the walls had been damaged. After observing this, I formed a mental image of how something must have woken these people up, only for them to find themselves trapped within the ruin. The desperation must have driven them into madness, attacking each other and cannibalizing the corpses to survive. The last survivor probably tried to claw his way out, punching and scratching at the walls until his nails broke and his fingers were ground down to the bone, only to collapse from the exhaustion. After this realization, my colonists began to carry off the weapons and bodies in grim contemplation of the horror that must've transpired here.

At least, that's what it looked like in my head. Without the area being shrouded by fog, those to paragraphs would've been "Oh hey, those guys are starving to death. I'll just wait and get their weapons as easy loot, awesome!" Personally, I prefer the above.

People here like to throw around the argument that Rimworld is about stories, but what does that mean? It isn't like some CRPG, telling a singular, prefabricated story through NPCs and dialog, Rimworld generates stories by throwing interesting events at the player and letting them react to them. As such the question we should be asking is, does Fog of War allow for more interesting events and/or interaction with them?

Taking the above example I'd say it already does: not knowing that I would get a haul of guns in the immediate future added tension to the raids as I was uncertain whether I would be able to withstand them. Not knowing what I would find inside the ancient structure (and whether I would be able to deal with it without casualties) made it that much more harrowing, turning the whole affair into somewhat of an act of desperation. Puzzling together the fate of the dead drew me into the game world much more than watching it from above ever could (I remember Tynan said in a thread about showing scars on pawns he'd rather let players fill in the details as ingame visuals would inevitably come up short, this is the same principle).

Just looking at currently existing events I can see a lot of potential for FoW. Alphabeavers right now are a complete non-event, my solution is always Jump to Location -> Mark for Hunting -> forget they ever existed. Imagine with FoW a hunter is looking for game as he comes across a vast deforested area. To stop further devastation the player sends him on a search for the source of the disturbance before dealing with them. But what if some stragglers got separated from the main pack? You could be finding errant beavers for months to come. Just by not letting the player see where the beavers are this throwaway event could be transformed into an actual issue to be dealt with. Likewise cargo drops, right now its just Jump to Location -> see a bunch of monkeyhide -> meh, not worth the effort. With FoW it would be a message saying "We detected some drop pods coming down to the north." Is it monkeyhide? Is it gold? Or maybe raiders? Send a scout and find out! Someone mentioned a stampede of Muffalo passing through the area, imagine if suddenly they appeared right outside your colony making their way through.

And lets not forget the massive potential for more interesting raider behaviour: do they simply charge your defenses, potentially blindsiding you as you struggle to get your people into position? Do they send a scout to determine the best avenue of approach (see A11 changes) while potentially alerting you to their presence? Maybe there is a raiding party wandering through the land and it is up to the player to determine whether these guys are here to attack or just passing through?

Not to mention the possibility for additional mechanics playing off of FoW, like camouflaged clothing and binoculars reducing/improving your visibility. Sieges could have a concealed spotter with a Ghillie suit and a sniper rifle sitting somewhere near your base and if you take him out they can only target structures, not colonists. It would even open the door for visitor interaction, if they're happy with your hospitality, they might tell you about that gold vein or the cargo pods full of silver they passed on the way here.

Personally I was kinda meh on the whole idea when I started reading this thread, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea. There is just so much potential for interesting stories to happen that I really hope now this gets implemented at some point. I get that some people are only playing this game to build their pretty bases and would rather have nothing bad ever happen to their colony. The game already gives them an out with Phoebe 5%. For the rest things like raids, dangerous events and losses are an integral part of the game and I don't think game design should let the core suffer over a niche aspect.

QuoteAt least, that's what it looked like in my head. Without the area being shrouded by fog, those to paragraphs would've been "Oh hey, those guys are starving to death. I'll just wait and get their weapons as easy loot, awesome!" Personally, I prefer the above.

The way I read it you just found free loot that came with skeleton and guessed what could have happened. We could ask Tynan to generate dead body with gun in shrine, that would have saved you time.
If you could have seen inside, had you ignored them (because why not) you would have actually lived these desperate moment and got screenshot to share. OR (supposing they weren't obligatorily hostile) you could have saved them, recruited them and felt like a savior.

In short you'd would have truly created your own story.

As Jhonny did, I believe you are confusing surprise and tension/suspense.
Hiding event would not create more tension, there is only tension/suspense when you see the threat clearly in front of you, know why it is a threat, keep doing everything to counter it, but still hope to survive it.

If you want to be surprised, I insist that asking for Outside-map exploration have more potential.

I have very little to add to this discussion except my keen observations as everyone else already involved in this discussion is embroiled in all the arguing and that I am new to all of this fuss as I did not know just how much people can argue philosophy over a proposed gameplay mechanic that barely takes any logic to flesh out.

It bothers me just how tunnel visioned and stubborn headed @Darkrage000 can be. He nitpicks on some aspects that can obviously be explained away with logical reasoning. It is obvious that you will see a mountain and hills. What is not so obvious is the siege camp on the other side of the map or the raiders coming in to raid you in the cover of night.
Another fail in reasoning is where he postulates that his colonists can see the obvious, they do not have great eyesight and depth of view to distinguish a distant raider or even a hidden pathway in the side of a mountain.


He then assumes like the -snip- that he is that somewhere in Tynan's Rimworld lore states anything like having a viewport at the side of an escape pod. He fails to think that the pod may have had a geological height mapper among other things like Infrared imaging and so on.
...
Why should he see what his colonists don't even...
He then just tries to make FoW look bad through his illogical excuses for reasoning.


====================================================================================


I end my rant and begin my most magical work of laying out the groundwork AFAIK you guys are formulating for.



You shall not have any visual awareness of any forces or events that transpires outside the knowledge of your observers.


Corollary, you shall only hear of or otherwise experience indirectly the forces that you have no knowledge of.


You shall be granted knowledge of the surrounding landmarks as part of the advanced emergency survival terrestrial mapping system inherited from your choosing of your landing site.


You will not maintain awareness of any given object given the volatility of the Rimworld and thus, should you leave occupance of your colony or parts thereof and you do not have active systems as to safeguard their permanence in the Rimworld, you shall lose sight of such property and risk whatever unknowns to interact with it.


These clauses sums up all of what I know that has been requested and comprises as the core interactions of this suggested feature.





You shall be borne from the very beginning, the fear of the unknown as men of ancient times has ever known.
You shall be weary of what may come through the smoke.
You shall hypothesise that which you fear and to seek out and not continue to fear the ancient scourge.
(Your colonists will now meaningfully pray in their beds for their salvation in their ignorance and fear.)


You shall be psychologically afflicted by this unknown evil, the ghastly explosions that sound from depths unknown to strike your settlement down.


You shall learn to fear what you once scoffed at to be of easy prey;
When the day they outsmart you in your pride and folly;
Your colonists wilter and fade in agony;
Only then, in your wretched sense of twisted rage;
Do you realise the implications of the fog;
Where the effects of war would cane.


But just think of all the adventure you may have, exploring the fear that you would have,
if and when you started to take -
the matter into your own hands.





The atmosphere of a Fog of War is chilling enough, the impact on gameplay, not so much.
But where the unknown is, playstyles will start to change.
The trick here is to invert you to be emergent, causing even dumb AI to seem emergent.
You decide if the next thing you see is a mechanoid army pounding your base or a mechanoid army having fresh been sniped away.


It's your decision if you want a more immersive game or a boring management game with little atmosphere.


... Keg, you -snip-. You just invite more personal attacks. ::)

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 13, 2015, 11:47:18 AM

QuoteAt least, that's what it looked like in my head. Without the area being shrouded by fog, those to paragraphs would've been "Oh hey, those guys are starving to death. I'll just wait and get their weapons as easy loot, awesome!" Personally, I prefer the above.

The way I read it you just found free loot that came with skeleton and guessed what could have happened. We could ask Tynan to generate dead body with gun in shrine, that would have saved you time.
If you could have seen inside, had you ignored them (because why not) you would have actually lived these desperate moment and got screenshot to share. OR (supposing they weren't obligatorily hostile) you could have saved them, recruited them and felt like a savior.

In short you'd would have truly created your own story.

That is not the point though. Its not about being some kind of omnipotent auditor putting little puppets into arbitrary situations, its about seeing an emergent story unfold. Its not about taking some screenshot, its about getting immersed in the game as you picture the situation in your head.

QuoteAs Jhonny did, I believe you are confusing surprise and tension/suspense.
Hiding event would not create more tension, there is only tension/suspense when you see the threat clearly in front of you, know why it is a threat, keep doing everything to counter it, but still hope to survive it.

If you want to be surprised, I insist that asking for Outside-map exploration have more potential.

I think it is you who doesn't quite grasp the concept of "suspense".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suspense

Quote2. the pleasurable emotion of anticipation and excitement regarding the outcome or climax of a book, film etc.
3. The unpleasant emotion of anxiety or apprehension in an uncertain situation.

Suspense in a story is created when an outcome is a) uncertain and b) important to the audience (usually because they are emotionally invested in the characters). When you're watching the film Serenity and they're making their daring escape from the Reavers you care about the characters and want to see them pull through, which causes said anticipation of the final outcome, when the fate of the crew becomes clear. If someone came in and said "pilot gets harpooned, the rest pulls through fine" that would kinda ruin it, wouldn't it?

To transfer this to my above example, you could say that there was a looming threat through raids that could outgun me and an emotional investment in the well-being of my colonists. The conflict in this particular story stemmed from the necessity of acquiring good firearms. The climax was the breaching of the structure and subsequent looting. Suspense came from two sources:

1) I feared for my colonists' well-being, as I was afraid a raid could wipe them out before they could properly arm themselves. This didn't actually happen, about a month after the incident I got a combat supplier and I bought enough heavy weaponry to be sorted for defense. Had I known this would happen there would have been no suspense as the outcome would have been already known. Likewise if I had known there is an easy supply of guns just around the corner.
2) As I was about to breach the structure, I didn't know what was inside. It could have been guns. It could have been nothing. Or it could have been Mechanoids which would have killed my colonists and destroyed my colony. Again, had I known what was inside there could not have been suspense, the outcome would have been known.

When I finally did the breach it did surprise me, because I did not expect this particular outcome but that does not invalidate the anticipation and suspense that I felt in all the time before that.

Sure, if I had more omniscient knowledge of the map, I might have gotten not only guns but also some prisoners, but it would have deprived me of the entire story. Had I known I would be able to arm my colonists in time there would have been no conflict and therefore no story. I'm sure someone out there gets more enjoyment playing an omnipotent director, spawning guns and pawns and raids on his own whim but I prefer the suspense that comes from not being omniscient.

TL;DR Suspense comes from uncertainty and without it there is no story.

P.S.: Anduin, could you keep it civil please? I get that you might be emotional about some of the posts but I'd rather this turn into a productive discussion rather than another thread lock.

Yes, a civil discussion would be more enjoyable for everyone, I think. Let's please make efforts to keep on track in that direction.

Quote from: NoImageAvailable on May 13, 2015, 12:57:35 PM
That is not the point though. Its not about being some kind of omnipotent auditor putting little puppets into arbitrary situations, its about seeing an emergent story unfold. Its not about taking some screenshot, its about getting immersed in the game as you picture the situation in your head.

Omniscience of the player is pretty much the point. You are the spectator/Player.
The inner rules and mechanic are there to put a logic to it, and interaction is needed to give you the ability to shape your story.

Though : Don't believe that I am defending "absolute omniscience".
What I defend is mostly that a "classical FoW" feature wouldn't serve what is Rimworld and that dissimulation of information is best used in precise fashion.

As well, don't make the mistake of believing that Rimworld "lack" a FoW. Displaying the needed information is just as important in video game-design than hiding it.
Knowing less of it don't make a story/game more immersive either.

QuoteI think it is you who doesn't quite grasp the concept of "suspense".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suspense
    2. the pleasurable emotion of anticipation and excitement regarding the outcome or climax of a book, film etc.
    3. The unpleasant emotion of anxiety or apprehension in an uncertain situation.

It's pretty much what make my point right.
You can only feel emotion of anticipation regarding outcome you can see. And the uncertainty of getting killed by an hypothetical raid is pointless unless it is a visible threat with too much visible parameters to predict the outcome, not a vague probability.

E.g : When you are watching a match play out. Are you only appreciating the numerical score without seeing the terrain ? Or are you appreciating the realm of possibility from everything you can see ?
This is the whole point of storytelling, making feel real yet uncertain what otherwise wouldn't have a emotional (or physical) existence to you.

Your interpretation with the "Serenity film" case is flawed. You are only considering the timing at which an information is delivered forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the scale and amount of information required to make it play EPIC.
In that famous scene you needed to see the whole environment to understand the threat and follow the action, had you only followed only what one characters see/hear... well you might still have achieved something but it would have been on a much different scale.

What you should be arguing is that FoW focus the storytelling over the character. However, since the colony as a whole is interesting and it would be pointless to ignore the surrounding, Giving information about it prime over dissimulation (which must be used over little details).

EVENTS serve the purpose of bringing the surprise you want. But FoW would only dampen their importance and impede what you can do with them.

About your last example,
Do you realize you might have never found the shrine had a FoW existed ? And that is was 'very convenient' for it to be there, so close.
1) The traders is simply outside the scope of the narration and gameplay balance. Many here would love to have an equally-balanced way to trade with faction.
2) Hiding what is inside that shrine would make it outside the scope too... if we weren't used to the fact that they are alway evil but can give loot/prisoners.

In any case, turning Rimworld into the wargame it can't and shouldn't be won't serve your stated objective, it would only impede the other mechanic that make management/survival crucial.

That's part of why I say that "Outside-Exploration" have more potential than FoW.
- The Shrine could have been outside map.
- The Shrine occupant could have been not evil.
- The Shrine occupant's state (starvation or NOT) could have been made visible with no loss in uncertainty
Basically creating a new scene. (and thereby allowing Structure-based Event that cannot be achieved when you don't know when you'll find it).

To put it in analogy :
- You propose to only see what the Serenity crew can see, not the actual action.
- I say it would be messy, and that suggesting to go outside the spaceship would achieve what I believe to be FoW-proponent wish better.

TL;DR
Fog of War would't improve Storytelling or Immersion, simply make you rely on blind luck to see it or feel it.

ps : Anduin1357, I find your post to come across as a little rude too.

Quote
TL;DR
Fog of War would't improve Storytelling or Immersion, simply make you rely on blind luck to see it or feel it.(edit) for Kegereneku(/edit)

edited for accuracy. Please don't presume that your view represents all players. I disagree with essentially everything you've posted in this thread. That doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right - just that this issue is almost wholly based on personal preference, not a logical argument.

I recognize that I have abused the affirmative stance, should work on it.
But it doesn't make any arguments that FoW would be "good" for Rimworld any more logical or true.
From my point of view, some of your implication are equally arrogant if not logical fallacy.

How about a compromise on fog of war?

You can still see enemies and stuff on the map, but details - like their gear and health - will only be visible while they're in LOS. Additionally, while outside LOS, pawns will only be identified by name and faction.

This would be something that would have to be toggleable off for testing, but for those of you who don't like having abundant information on your enemies, toggling it on means that you will only know things about pawns which can be discerned by an in-LOS colonist. If you want to learn their traits and stats, you'll actually have to imprison them and find out.

As far as items with variable quality and health are concerned i.e. apparel and weapons, pawns with the Hauling job will go exploring for stuff they can scavenge (from the ground or corpses) but won't actually pick something up if it doesn't fit the filters of your existing stockpiles, and will mark it so they know not to go look at that item again unless you make a stockpile for it, the rationale being that if you haven't got a stockpile for it, you don't want the item in the base because it's worthless.

Not sure about that last bit, but it might be nice to selectively strip corpses before burying them or hauling them off somewhere to dessicate far from colonist eyes.

A compromise is better than nothing, although if that kind of system is put in place (with a toggle) I'm not sure why there shouldn't be a full fow implemented (as a toggle). In my mind it should be similar to adding another storyteller option, so that those opposed aren't forced into it.

I imagine one reason this isn't done yet is because of the risk of forking the modding community?

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 13, 2015, 02:59:26 PM
It's pretty much what make my point right.
You can only feel emotion of anticipation regarding outcome you can see. And the uncertainty of getting killed by an hypothetical raid is pointless unless it is a visible threat with too much visible parameters to predict the outcome, not a vague probability.

I don't know about you, but I (and I daresay over 99% of the player base) are capable of anticipating hypothetical future events. Just because there are no Centipedes banging on your door right this instant doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen and the mere possibility is enough to create a credible threat to be accounted for. The raider threat in my game was a real factor in planning even though it never materialized.

QuoteYour interpretation with the "Serenity film" case is flawed. You are only considering the timing at which an information is delivered forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the scale and amount of information required to make it play EPIC.
In that famous scene you needed to see the whole environment to understand the threat and follow the action, had you only followed only what one characters see/hear... well you might still have achieved something but it would have been on a much different scale.

But timing is exactly what this is about. By carefully managing the flow of information you create suspension. It is called pacing and it is Storytelling 101. The point of the example was that by revealing an outcome too early you take the suspension out and there is no more interest in watching the story unfold. There is no point in watching if you know what will happen anyway and its called spoiling for a reason.

Now for Rimworld you have to consider that since it follows a set of rules an outcome can be predicted as soon as the relevant pieces are known. The second the player sees that the cryosleep guys are awake and trapped in a room with no exit he can predict the outcome and the story is over. He might go back to watch them once or twice but the interest is lost. And this is for Fog of War comes into play, it prevents you from seeing things too early and thereby allows for more drawn out stories with actual tension. It essentially prevents the game from spoiling itself.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario where a group of pirates gets wiped out by insane animals and how it would play out with or without FoW:

Without fog, you see the raiders arrive at the edge of the map. You muster your colonists in a defensive position. Then you see the animal insanity event pop up. You jump to location, see that the path intersects with the raiders'. That's it, the story is over, the colonists are undrafted and you go back to managing the colony. You might go back to watch the spectacle here and there but that's it.

With fog, you see a raider scout your defenses. You know there is a raiding party somewhere out there. You put up sentries to spot their approach and muster your defenders in a central location from which they can react quickly. After a while the raiders fail to appear and you get suspicious. They didn't blow a whole in a wall somewhere, did they? A quick perimeter check reveals nothing. You send a scout to see where they are and find a battlefield littered with the corpses of raiders and animals, maybe even catch a glimpse of it still ongoing. Now you know you can let your colonists stand down.

As you can see, both versions share the same scenario yet the second makes for a much more complex, tense and engaging story, simply because information is not immediately relayed to the player.

QuoteAbout your last example,
Do you realize you might have never found the shrine had a FoW existed ? And that is was 'very convenient' for it to be there, so close.
1) The traders is simply outside the scope of the narration and gameplay balance. Many here would love to have an equally-balanced way to trade with faction.
2) Hiding what is inside that shrine would make it outside the scope too... if we weren't used to the fact that they are alway evil but can give loot/prisoners.

You seem to be under this assumption that Fog of War means no information relayed at all. That is plain false. What it does is delay the information, with the exact pacing depending on player interaction ("make your own story" as you said, do you send out scouts or stay oblivious to the outside world?). In my case I would've found the shrine regardless because I would have scouted the area, I just wouldn't have known about it right on arrival. I still found out about the starved sleepers, it just took me until I actually breached and cleared the fog to find out.

QuoteIn any case, turning Rimworld into the wargame it can't and shouldn't be won't serve your stated objective, it would only impede the other mechanic that make management/survival crucial.

[Citation needed]

QuoteTL;DR
Fog of War would't improve Storytelling or Immersion, simply make you rely on blind luck to see it or feel it.

I gave you multiple concrete examples of how Fog of War would directly improve the storytelling with regards to existing events and you haven't addressed a single one of them. I would like to see you actually address these for once as so far your arguments have mostly been beside the point. As for that second part, that is just plain false. FoW isn't blind luck, it is a game mechanic with clearly established rules. You find information precisely when you go out and look for it.

As for Marvin's compromise idea, that seems like too half-baked and irrelevant a mechanic to satisfy anyone. The important information is that there are raiders and where they are, not what color their pants are.

Well, I respectfully disagree. There's a lot more info about the gear than just what colour it is. If I recall correctly, the quality and hitpoints of a ranged weapon have an effect on the accuracy of shots fired with it.

Why is that important, and why should it be hidden?

If you know the quality and repair of a weapon before any of your colonists can actually see it, then you may decide in advance to capture or kill the pawn currently holding it, so that you can use it. Without this information, you only know what type of weapon is equipped.

Without having a massive heads up, when an enemy pops into LOS and you notice that their assault rifle is fully repaired and excellent quality, then your priorities or even your battle plan may have to change, because trading shots with that enemy isn't going to be as painless as a slugfest against an enemy with a much poorer version of the same weapon.

It may seem half-baked. That's what I got when I answered the following question:

What sort of bare-minimum fog of war implementation would add some mystery but at the same time not be bloody annoying?

My reasoning here is that the annoyance with the usual sort of fog of war likely stems from there being an arbitrary sight cut-off. Which means that pawns suddenly appear or disappear, or are rendered in a different way in the fog, etc.

So I wanted to go for something which looks much like Rimworld does currently, which means no disappearing and re-appearing enemies, or even much indication of where fog starts.

Then I thought to myself, what is annoying about Rimworld as it is? That you have such an abundance of stats on your enemies before they're anywhere near your base. If there was a pooping speed stat, you'd know it to two decimal places without needing to measure. :D

I decided that taking away that wealth of information on enemies and things you can't see gives the game a bit more polish. Where the fun in a colony simulation when you know all the variables?

You may not agree with this, however in deciding how to implement such a system (or whether it is even warranted) the bare minimum version is, in my opinion, a good place to start from. Just like what you need as a bare minimum to drill into someone's head and remove an alien parasite. ;)

Sure, the quality of enemy armor slightly affects their stats but it is still irrelevant to player decision making. Any weapon has the potential to do significant damage to a pawn so any battle plan must revolve around finishing it as quickly as possible, no matter if the enemy is armed with masterwork charge rifles or shoddy pistols.

Likewise if the enemy has a gun that I want to capture I tell my pawns to focus fire on him. This is a decision that can be made at first contact, it doesn't rely on foreknowledge.

The whole point of Fog of War is that it affects players' decision making by concealing information. By only concealing information that is not relevant (or only relevant from the moment it is revealed anyway) you've effectively created an irrelevant mechanic, which still took programming time to implement and impacts performance as pawn line of sight must be tracked yet offers no tangible benefit to the gameplay.

To stay with your metaphor, it might be a good start but if you don't actually remove the parasite you just drilled a hole in someone's head for no reason.

in in early-stage of the game, my colonists are always like..

"ah!! that dude is carrying the stuffs that we NEEED!!"

and often times i bum rush the suckah and pummel him so he can't flee.

ie : some random dude carrying a brand spanking new sniper rifle in excellent condition or that dude wearing hyperweave pants. 

but in the late-stage of the game, i get so much sniper rifle surplus, i consider it as an export product. lel.

Quote from: MarvinKosh on May 13, 2015, 04:19:38 PM
How about a compromise on fog of war?

I'm all about compromise, but I fear we still have to discuss the reasons and goal behind each changes.

- If one want guard and patrol, I already suggested Events that make full interest of it without destroying the game. And can suggest more
- If one want discovery, out-colony exploration have much more potential.
- Hiding SPECIFIC information about the Raider is a line of thinking we can follow, but it can impeded our ability to shape the story we want (if done wrong).

To me, as I gave reasons for across the entire thread a "classic" FoW is only relevant for Wargame. And would IMO harms the storytelling & survival aspect of Rimworld, as well as impede Events creation.

Quote from: NoImageAvailable on May 13, 2015, 05:21:49 PM
But timing is exactly what this is about. By carefully managing the flow of information you create suspension.

If this isn't wrong it's only because of a very loose interpretation of "flow".
As I said, you are only considering "time" relevant. You think that by making uncertain when you'll see any threat you are creating tension. But -opinion- this is a erroneous view. You would only multiply surprise (around each visible raider), and missing the point of Events.

What you are not getting (IMO) is that you need to SEE a volume of information as well to fully understand the threat.

QuoteNow for Rimworld you have to consider that since it follows a set of rules an outcome can be predicted as soon as the relevant pieces are known.

In Chess, knowing where the piece of your adversary are, don't make it more likely to plan out the outcome. (unless you didn't told us you are a Super-computer with a full data-base of every single possible way a match can play out, which is a thing)
In Rimworld, I can safely affirm the number of pieces and parameters are too high for any human to consider at once, thus can be safely displayed to participate to the storytelling aspect which require omniscience (as explained numerous time in the topic).

You are confusing making outcome unpredictable and postponing when it will be, worse, your suggested way would reduce the number of parameters, making it even more predictable.

Even more so as FoW-proponent will inevitably ask for the mean to "counter the FoW" with the explicit goal of fighting battle with the enemy that are at their advantage.
As pointed out numerous time, the FoW is not just to make it threatening to you, many proponent fully expect to threaten the enemy back.
And this logic is pretty much why FoW is meant for Wargame, not for the survival/storytelling aspect of Rimworld.

Quote[Citation needed]

Sorry, I assumed you actually read the topic before formulating an educated opinion. Silly of me...

But since you weren't the one I answered to... here is a summary :
- FoW imply Scout, Patrol, Radar, variable seeing distance, big movement speed variation. and the time to react and mount actual strategy without being bothered by the survival aspect of Rimworld. (confusing Rimworld with a RTS)
- Time is a critical factor used differently in Rimworld and Wargame, having the time/resources to sent scout at moment notice anywhere or patrol for entire day will require to make the rest (equally the management than the threats) much less important, as a trade-off.
- Storytelling, as we are currently discussing, require to see stuff to be meaningful. People do care less about the 0.1% risk of a threatening events than the events threatening them right now. FoW would only delay the time you are given to react.
- Event now, is what make the game. It is the very thing that is meant to challenge you by surprise and have you scramble/plan to counter it, It is also meant to give a more balanced threats than if let to blind luck. You have to see them as well to plan against them. And because FoW reduce reaction-time it would prevent any Events that require such time.

QuoteYou seem to be under this assumption that Fog of War means no information relayed at all. That is plain false. What it does is delay the information,

Did you actually read my answer to you ? (and other ideally) That's precisely because I KNOW that it ONLY delay POINTLESSLY informations gathering and require NEW MEANS of getting the information ANYWAY that FoW would be pointless complication.

For the Shrine thing, by now, I say enough to answer that.
You are confusing keeping a wide "realm of possibility" with hoping it play more than one result (e.g : starved shrine occupant versus still startving) through blind luck.

YOU have to tell, how would FoW give the choice of saving or not (non-evil) Shrine occupant without it being linked to blind luck, and without it being more easily accomplished through the visible Events system we have now.
(If you want to know, I just put an event suggestion for this here (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=9755.msg99874#msg99874))

QuoteI gave you multiple concrete examples of how Fog of War would directly improve the storytelling with regards to existing events and you haven't addressed a single one of them.

Could you please quote me the example you think I haven't addressed ?
Be assured that I have considered your answers in their integrity and not only tiny bit we could risk taking out of context. Answering people line by line is IMO unconstructive.


Edit : Minor change

First point.
Kegereneku believes that the entire thread is all about classic FoW and seems to forget the compromises everyone else makes to try and fit their respective concepts into the game.

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 14, 2015, 10:46:12 AM
To me, as I gave reasons for across the entire thread a "classic" FoW is only relevant for Wargame. And would IMO harms the storytelling & survival aspect of Rimworld, as well as impede Events creation.

Fair use for the sake of criticism.

He thinks that we want to shape the story to a great extent, he is talking to the wrong crowd.
I have seen posts that sets the precedent wish for the story to proceed not as expected, but as unknowns.

Quote from: Johnny Masters on April 20, 2015, 07:52:30 AM
(Point)
"...dealing with less nauseous and repetitive invasions and more on the psychological aspect of not having omniscience and most likely having the whole man vs nature way more predominantly than the non-existance of it now.

Then we get stuff like fear of losing control and incapability to accept loss. As we all know, save scumming is a bad habit that instant save-load gaming brought us to feel the need to always be in control. I'm not going to say how people should play their game, but losing a fave pawn because you screwed up or because of chance is not bad design or because FoW doesn't or shouldn't belong in the game, it's a player's inability to cope with loss and letting it go."
(Thesis)
"As for me, i already know what not having FoW brings, and i'm not impressed.  Now I'm just trying to find out how much better FoW is over the limited stories omniscience brings. Unless, again, people provide more positive examples of it."

Fair use for the sake of criticism.
There is even support for FoV enhancing gameplay in Rimworld.

Quote from: rexx1888 on April 19, 2015, 07:41:25 AM
"the fow is there to encourage players to scout and engage the enemy. since they dont know where they(or anything else) is, they have to spread out. it keeps the games economy working. Its vital to that economy in most cases. Its vital to really alot of stuff that rts's are built on tbh

RW though, is about story. the fog has to be built around different goals. That though, is possible. you seem to be thinking that the mechanic will always be the same even in a different game, but it cant be. thats not how system design works. you build the system to achieve the things you want. In Rimworld, the thing you want is mystery and the possibility that anything can be out there. you want the fog to encourage new stories. so it has to be less about being blindsided or covering up the enemies. it would need to be relatively forgiving, and not difficult to "defeat". it needs to be there in the background, a tool to aid the story, not a central theme."

Fair use for the sake of criticism.
All these sources were supportive of the approach that not knowing your surroundings affords more story opportunities.

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 14, 2015, 10:46:12 AM

Quote from: NoImageAvailable on May 13, 2015, 05:21:49 PM"'But timing is exactly what this is about. By carefully managing the flow of information you create suspension.' It is called pacing and it is Storytelling 101. The point of the example was that by revealing an outcome too early you take the suspension out and there is no more interest in watching the story unfold. There is no point in watching if you know what will happen anyway and its called spoiling for a reason."

If this isn't wrong it's only because of a very loose interpretation of "flow".
As I said, you are only considering "time" relevant. You think that by making uncertain when you'll see any threat you are creating tension. But -opinion- this is a erroneous view. You would only multiply surprise (around each visible raider), and missing the point of Events.

What you are not getting (IMO) is that you need to SEE a volume of information as well to fully understand the threat.

Fair use for the sake of criticism.

As per underlined, he references to limited information and promptly forgets that this is FoW that he is arguing about.

NoImageAvailable is more consistent with his argument than Kegereneku as I quote:

"The point of the example was that by revealing an outcome too early you take the suspension out and there is no more interest in watching the story unfold. There is no point in watching if you know what will happen anyway and its called spoiling for a reason." (First quote)

Is easier to follow logically than

"You think that by making uncertain when you'll see any threat you are creating tension. But -opinion- this is a erroneous view. You would only multiply surprise (around each visible raider), and missing the point of Events.

What you are not getting (IMO) is that you need to SEE a volume of information as well to fully understand the threat." (Second quote)

Now, here is the question, Isn't surprise an event in FoW in and of itself?
Also, what kind of stories can you get when you know completely everything about the threat?
Lastly, isn't the first quote the direct counter to whatever the second quote says?

For the next point Kegereneku makes, he took the explanation of the first quote and took it completely out of context as, given that it was never the point to start with, places Kegereneku's point completely irrelevant and honestly quite incoherent.

The next sentence becomes his interpretation of the going ons in this thread.
Mind you that coming from him, it cannot be an objective description given his core role in the arguing.
Therefore, his summary of the thread is unreliable and cannot be trusted.

Next quote ended with a comma, rendering it an invalid quote.

His response to the last quote then states his assurances.

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 14, 2015, 10:46:12 AM
Be assured that I have considered your answers in their integrity and not only tiny bit we could risk taking out of context. Answering people line by line is IMO unconstructive.

Fair use for the sake of criticism.

He has taken quotes out of explanations and misrepresents it as a point, is that not evidence of "taking out of context"?
He also does not provide any evidence that "Answering people line by line is IMO unconstructive."
If you are reading this post and enjoying it, you should well already know that the above has not applied to this post and I daresay almost all the civil discussion in this thread taken in this form of "line by line" approach.
In fact, it is to the contrary that such an approach is not constructive due to how detailed and comprehensive the approach is as a format for civil discussion as it goes by "To not leave any stone unturned."

And thus as I have concluded my detailed analysis of the post below me, I hope this would give reason for Kegereneku to reflect on his approach to this thread and how he could be derailing it.

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 14, 2015, 10:46:12 AM[For Reference]

On my personal views, I find myself in agreement with Johnny Masters and co. as their arguments are for the most part, valid and easy to follow logically. I do believe that new genre subtypes have their own uses for adaptations of features used in other genres. Being in a broad sense, genre research and analysis.

I encourage the implementation of FoW as it is a valid addition to the game among other things that do makeover the entire feel of the game to where the developer is perceived to have a notion towards. I have touched on atmosphere on my previous post which unfortunately, being derided for being "un-civil discussion" material, lost it's original purpose to the emotional interpretations of everyone involved. I have no regrets for that post for good reason.

I shall continue to be objective and will not involve myself directly in the discussion, I will be standing by to stabilise this thread and prevent it's locking to some emotional heat and logical rend.

Have a nice day.

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 14, 2015, 02:36:23 PM
First point.
Kegereneku believes that the entire thread is all about classic FoW and seems to forget the compromises everyone else makes to try and fit their respective concepts into the game.

As a first point it would have been appreciated to not be a blatant lie. This is not a 'civil approach' to misrepresent other views in an attempt to discredit them to your liking.

There is so much wrong with the rest of your post that I will simply not bother. One thing is sure : you are not "mediating" anything, no matter what you seem to believe.

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 14, 2015, 04:01:42 PM

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 14, 2015, 02:36:23 PM
First point.
Kegereneku believes that the entire thread is all about classic FoW and seems to forget the compromises everyone else makes to try and fit their respective concepts into the game.

As a first point it would have been appreciated to not be a blatant lie. This is not a 'civil approach' to misrepresent other views in an attempt to discredit them to your liking.

There is so much wrong with the rest of your post that I will simply not bother. One thing is sure : you are not "mediating" anything, no matter what you seem to believe.

That's literally what he's doing. I don't understand how it could be anything else. Simmer down, you're getting all uppetty when there's no real need for it. The fella is calming the situation nicely.
Blimey this thread is intense; I've broken a sweat just reading it.

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 14, 2015, 10:46:12 AM
If this isn't wrong it's only because of a very loose interpretation of "flow".
As I said, you are only considering "time" relevant. You think that by making uncertain when you'll see any threat you are creating tension. But -opinion- this is a erroneous view. You would only multiply surprise (around each visible raider), and missing the point of Events.

What you are not getting (IMO) is that you need to SEE a volume of information as well to fully understand the threat.

Again you go completely missing the point. It is not about making uncertain when you'll see a threat, it is about concealing information and making it harder for the player to achieve an optimal solution, thereby making the outcome of the encounter uncertain. This is what allows tension and suspense to exist in the first place and it is Storytelling 101 so I don't see why you are even debating this.

And I fully understand that you need to see all the information to understand a threat. The problem is that as soon as you have that understanding the tension is gone.

QuoteIn Chess, knowing where the piece of your adversary are, don't make it more likely to plan out the outcome. (unless you didn't told us you are a Super-computer with a full data-base of every single possible way a match can play out, which is a thing)

Ehm, yes it does. If you don't know where the opponents pieces are you not only have to predict every possible outcome from the move he made but also every move he could have made.

QuoteIn Rimworld, I can safely affirm the number of pieces and parameters are too high for any human to consider at once, thus can be safely displayed to participate to the storytelling aspect which require omniscience (as explained numerous time in the topic).

I'm sorry, but anyone with even basic levels of intelligence can predict things like "these guys don't have food and no way out, they're going to starve to death". You also go on this tangent again, like you are supposed to be playing the storyteller. You are not, that's the game's job, otherwise you would be the one spawning raids and solar flares not the RNG. The player in Rimworld is a co-author at best, reacting to events to the best of his ability but never creating or shaping them.

You need to understand that "storytelling game" doesn't mean you're God with the world as your plaything. It means the game throws events at you that are beyond your control and forces you interact with them in some way in order to achieve a desired outcome. The story is then created from these events and your reaction as well as whether or not you succeeded in achieving your desired outcome or not. You don't just decide that you want a raid to not wipe out your colony. The game tries to do it and you are forced to come up to prevent it. This creates challenge and meaningful player interaction and is the essence of gameplay.

QuoteYou are confusing making outcome unpredictable and postponing when it will be, worse, your suggested way would reduce the number of parameters, making it even more predictable.

This is just plain wrong. Not knowing parameters doesn't remove them nor does it merely postpone an outcome. The outcome is shaped by whichever strategy the player adapts to achieve it and by limiting his knowledge you either force him to act on incomplete information and adopting a suboptimal solution or postpone acting until more information is available (which can have its own kind of consequences).

QuoteEven more so as FoW-proponent will inevitably ask for the mean to "counter the FoW" with the explicit goal of fighting battle with the enemy that are at their advantage.
As pointed out numerous time, the FoW is not just to make it threatening to you, many proponent fully expect to threaten the enemy back.
And this logic is pretty much why FoW is meant for Wargame, not for the survival/storytelling aspect of Rimworld.

And that is a bad thing somehow? Of course players try to fight battles that are to their advantage. The thing about fog is that this allows for more complex, more interesting ways to go about this.

Also, what's with your constant references to Wargame? It is a great RTS series (with a pretty good Fog of War system too, BTW) but I don't see what it has to do with Rimworld. Unless you mean it as some kind of reference to RTS games in general while trying to contrast them to Rimworld. In which case I'm afraid I have to disappoint you, because Rimworld already has real-time combat with indirect unit control as a core gameplay mechanic.

QuoteSorry, I assumed you actually read the topic before formulating an educated opinion. Silly of me...

I followed this thread as it developed but I don't remember every single argument made. Your posts are especially difficult as they are incoherent and often seem to rely on what I can only call moon logic. If you have something that is relevant to the current conversation, either recap or quote it.

QuoteBut since you weren't the one I answered to... here is a summary :
- FoW imply Scout, Patrol, Radar, variable seeing distance, big movement speed variation. and the time to react and mount actual strategy without being bothered by the survival aspect of Rimworld. (confusing Rimworld with a RTS)

I think it is you who is confusing Rimworld for something it is not, see above.

Quote- Time is a critical factor used differently in Rimworld and Wargame, having the time/resources to sent scout at moment notice anywhere or patrol for entire day will require to make the rest (equally the management than the threats) much less important, as a trade-off.

What? No it won't. On the contrary, it makes the survival aspects more punishing because a scout isn't contributing anything to the production of the colony. You'd have to weight the risk of being blindsided versus the cost of feeding an unproductive colonist which makes for interesting gameplay decisions. The game already does this with nobles and assassins who are really helpful in combat but otherwise don't contribute to the colony.

Quote- Storytelling, as we are currently discussing, require to see stuff to be meaningful. People do care less about the 0.1% risk of a threatening events than the events threatening them right now. FoW would only delay the time you are given to react.

Of course people care more about an imminent than a future threat but that doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. It is about how you deal with a threat that is influenced by a lack of information. If you know there is an imminent threat but don't know its exact nature you need to consider not only the direction it is coming from (as it is unknown) but also every other direction they might come from and how to best account for every possibility. Additionally you'd have to weight the risks and benefits of acting now in a suboptimal manner versus spending time and resources on gathering more information about the threat thus being able to take a better approach. This adds strategic depth and makes for more interesting interactions with the game world.

Quote- Event now, is what make the game. It is the very thing that is meant to challenge you by surprise and have you scramble/plan to counter it, It is also meant to give a more balanced threats than if let to blind luck. You have to see them as well to plan against them. And because FoW reduce reaction-time it would prevent any Events that require such time.

There are more balanced ways of giving reaction time than omniscience, like the aforementioned raider scout who lets you know a raiding party is somewhere on the map. I also find it amusing that you somehow praise events giving limited reaction time, yet criticize FoW for doing the same thing in the very next sentence.

Quote

QuoteYou seem to be under this assumption that Fog of War means no information relayed at all. That is plain false. What it does is delay the information,

Did you actually read my answer to you ? (and other ideally) That's precisely because I KNOW that it ONLY delay POINTLESSLY informations gathering and require NEW MEANS of getting the information ANYWAY that FoW would be pointless complication.

How about not cutting my arguments mid-sentence and addressing the entire argument? Especially since it actually addresses your exact point? Because information gathering depends on player interaction it allows for more intricate decision making, both with regards to when and how to gather information but also what to do when gathering it is not a viable option.

QuoteFor the Shrine thing, by now, I say enough to answer that.
You are confusing keeping a wide "realm of possibility" with hoping it play more than one result (e.g : starved shrine occupant versus still startving) through blind luck.

YOU have to tell, how would FoW give the choice of saving or not (non-evil) Shrine occupant without it being linked to blind luck, and without it being more easily accomplished through the visible Events system we have now.
(If you want to know, I just put an event suggestion for this here (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=9755.msg99874#msg99874))

*Sigh* Again, you completely miss the point. It is not about choosing whether or not to save the shrine people because that is a no-brainer. Not saving them would deprive me of valuable colonists and is thus an objectively inferior choice, so its not a decision at all. What this is about is not knowing what is inside the shrine and therefore not knowing what the right decision is, thereby creating suspense in anticipation of the outcome of the decision.

QuoteCould you please quote me the example you think I haven't addressed ?
Be assured that I have considered your answers in their integrity and not only tiny bit we could risk taking out of context. Answering people line by line is IMO unconstructive.

I have given numerous examples how FoW could make events, both combat related and not, more interesting. You haven't addressed a single one of them, instead insisting that it doesn't contribute to storytelling. Just the latest:

QuoteWithout fog, you see the raiders arrive at the edge of the map. You muster your colonists in a defensive position. Then you see the animal insanity event pop up. You jump to location, see that the path intersects with the raiders'. That's it, the story is over, the colonists are undrafted and you go back to managing the colony. You might go back to watch the spectacle here and there but that's it.

With fog, you see a raider scout your defenses. You know there is a raiding party somewhere out there. You put up sentries to spot their approach and muster your defenders in a central location from which they can react quickly. After a while the raiders fail to appear and you get suspicious. They didn't blow a whole in a wall somewhere, did they? A quick perimeter check reveals nothing. You send a scout to see where they are and find a battlefield littered with the corpses of raiders and animals, maybe even catch a glimpse of it still ongoing. Now you know you can let your colonists stand down.

Explain to me, how is that not a direct and substantial improvement to storytelling?

Quote from: Kegereneku on May 14, 2015, 04:01:42 PM

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 14, 2015, 02:36:23 PM
First point.
Kegereneku believes that the entire thread is all about classic FoW and seems to forget the compromises everyone else makes to try and fit their respective concepts into the game.

As a first point it would have been appreciated to not be a blatant lie. This is not a 'civil approach' to misrepresent other views in an attempt to discredit them to your liking.

There is so much wrong with the rest of your post that I will simply not bother. One thing is sure : you are not "mediating" anything, no matter what you seem to believe.

You could have posted any sort of evidence that it was a lie.
You did not state what was misrepresented
You think that my post is not worth your time.

Your point for that post?

I think that it is unreasonable punitive to require the player to draft colonists to go clear fog. It's what they would have to do if fog was currently in the game, since there are no recon towers or even just a simple roof panel and ladder to allow them to take a peek outside.

Anyway. I suggested some new guidelines (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=447.0) for the Suggestions forum. Tynan said to go ahead and post them. Bear in mind these are guidelines only, I've also quoted the forum rules for ease of reference.

The reason I mention it now is that well, I'm not picking on anyone in particular, but it happens that there's a bit of discussion of the discussion going on, rather than fresh discussion of the original suggestion. If it's not possible to agree on something, or if it seems that someone does not clearly understand a point, it's not necessary to have a whole side conversation on the topic.

I'd rather that you summarised the various disagreements at the end of the topic, which is where most people are going to look to figure out whether anything came from the discussion. Saves digging through the whole topic, right?

^ Rhetorical question.

Posting a question for the discussion of the discussion is quite hypocritical of MarvinKosh. Nonetheless, a question is a question and I am obligated to answer.

The whole problem with Kegereneku's summary is that it's biased just based on his role alone. It would have been more trustworthy if it came from a more objective source.

i love how the start of this thread requests everyone to try and avoid creating "sides" to this conflict, and immediately that falls by the wayside(and i wont lie, i am biased to one "side", but id like to think i give the current iteration of RW a pretty solid pass just by spending words on saying its rad but can be better. many many words). Im even more amazed by how much longer the thread got O.o an all the mud slinging is kind of amusing as. I mean, its not making us smarter than monkeys, but its amusing :P

still, there is a lot of mud slinging, especially at keg. Lets leave keg alone, on other topics his opinions are objectively correct, an hes pretty nice. It took me a few weeks of forum hopping to see, but its true.

I still think that FoW brings more to RW than it takes away. Theres nothing i can say though to prove it. An thats actually what i wanted to talk about for a moment. Its the resource cost of A FoW system. First, we need to identify two different parts of the system. Theres Fog Of War(FOW), which is the thing obscuring stuff in some way(this btw is also similar to walls and other obstacles), AND THEN there is Line Of Sight(LOS) which is the pawns actually seeing things. They are two different systems but they work together. An to make matters more complicated, you can have an LOS system without FOW but you cannot have FOW without LOS. At the moment, the pawns do not have a LOS, but FOW does exist in game, an its weird. For instance, the FOW exists over closed rooms. The minute that room is opened, its unveiled and we can see everything. The LOS system is literally our ability to see the world. Its not particularly resource intensive, but it feels a little odd. Just my opinion though.

My point though, is when we discuss implementing FOW we are talking about two systems that will need fleshing out. thats two whole systems that will need implementing and tying into the game. I mean, LOS will have to actively be tied to eye objects, and to sight sensors an anything else that provides "sight". The thing is, it will probably also have to be tied to things like scent and hearing as well. This is because LOS systems are complicated, and they are best done not by Wargames, but by stealth games. Shocking, i know, but thats the truth. Stealth games have LOS systems locked. Both from a player perspective and the npcs. They just do it better, an if RW was to implement FOW it would need to draw from stealth games LOS. that, by itself would make it a very different beast to your average wargame. Its also a lot of work. huge amounts of work. And talking from experience, its alot of work just designing the damn system. Before you can even implement it, it needs to be designed and looked at from all sorts of complicated angles. Its a long drawn out process. An the thing is, you cant half arse it without breaking verisimilitude. If you can see and you have ears, players ask why they cant hear. If you can see an hear but you have a nose, players ask why they cant smell. In RW though, these systems actually add a lot for all the work though. Imagine colonists that hate the smell of something and get neg mood mods from it, or some lonely colonists get neg mood mods from hearing couples shag in the next room. that would certainly make them feel like people. Also takes time to implement. Which might be the single biggest negative. Not the loss of stories(because there isnt one), not the sudden extra work(its a management game anyway) and not the lessening of the survival aspects(because thats blatant hyperbole). its the dev cost. Its a monster of a cost. Its iterative as, an it takes monumental amounts of time to balance. An it needs more work on other systems to make it work.

I still think its worth it, but i can understand why some people wouldnt want to do that kind of work. Its long, involved, and just blatantly difficult. It requires some serious design chops to boot, an a solid programmer. It takes ridiculous amounts of effort is basically what im saying.

thems my additional p's and q's.

Edit: typos

That is what this suggestion thread is for! Working out for poor Tynan just how we think this should be implemented and why, not to debate all over yes or no.

The development time can be shortened if the persons suggesting it does not leave it to the dev to implement but also to expand on what the suggestion comprises of and formulate a workable mechanic that would be ready to implement without too much balancing issue.

The biggest problem would then only be writing code for the mechanic.

Keg messing this discussion is the problem, he may be nice elsewhere but it does not show here which is what matters.

Showing support for the suggestion would go a long way to helping Tynan get motivated to implement this.

Quote from: rexx1888 on May 15, 2015, 01:04:36 AM
still, there is a lot of mud slinging, especially at keg. Lets leave keg alone, on other topics his opinions are objectively correct, an hes pretty nice. It took me a few weeks of forum hopping to see, but its true.

Just wanting to point out, regardless of what his stances on other topics may or may not be, it has no bearing on his posts in this particular topic and they should be judged on their merits alone, not their poster's reputation or your personal opinion of him. That is all I'm going to say on that particular topic.

QuoteI still think its worth it, but i can understand why some people wouldnt want to do that kind of work. Its long, involved, and just blatantly difficult. It requires some serious design chops to boot, an a solid programmer. It takes ridiculous amounts of effort is basically what im saying.

I think you are vastly overestimating the cost of such a system. It could be as simple as giving each pawn a vision and a visibility stat.

Vision could be: base vision range stat * modifiers from Seeing efficiency (already tracked by the game) * modifiers from weather and lighting (already tracked by the game and applied to shooting accuracy) * potential modifiers from equipment (binoculars)

Visibility could be: body size * cover modifier * pawn stance (all three already tracked by the game) * potential modifiers from equipment (camouflage)

Whenever an object is within vision range of a pawn a check is made if it is within vision * visibility tiles and if so it is displayed. From a technical perspective all one would have to do is implement a new pawn stat and potentially two new equipment modifiers, as well as some calculations using already existing values in order to create a fairly in-depth Fog of War system. Beyond that most of the work would be the graphical representation as well as performance. I don't think it would take Tynan much more than a week or two to implement such a system however.

Some remaining questions would be how to handle static objects. For cover objects such as chunks and sandbags there is already a fillage stat which could be used in place of body size. Trees and walls could always be visible from maximum range. For goods a global constant could be set as I don't think we need to model different visibility of strawberries vs granite chunks.

The vision system in stealth games isn't much more complicated than that either BTW, all they do in addition is calculate cones of vision for enemies as well as cover obstruction which I don't think is necessary for Rimworld.

Quote from: NoImageAvailable on May 15, 2015, 06:34:30 AM

Quote from: rexx1888 on May 15, 2015, 01:04:36 AM
still, there is a lot of mud slinging, especially at keg. Lets leave keg alone, on other topics his opinions are objectively correct, an hes pretty nice. It took me a few weeks of forum hopping to see, but its true.

Just wanting to point out, regardless of what his stances on other topics may or may not be, it has no bearing on his posts in this particular topic and they should be judged on their merits alone, not their poster's reputation or your personal opinion of him. That is all I'm going to say on that particular topic.

QuoteI still think its worth it, but i can understand why some people wouldnt want to do that kind of work. Its long, involved, and just blatantly difficult. It requires some serious design chops to boot, an a solid programmer. It takes ridiculous amounts of effort is basically what im saying.

I think you are vastly overestimating the cost of such a system. It could be as simple as giving each pawn a vision and a visibility stat.

Vision could be: base vision range stat * modifiers from Seeing efficiency (already tracked by the game) * modifiers from weather and lighting (already tracked by the game and applied to shooting accuracy) * potential modifiers from equipment (binoculars)

Visibility could be: body size * cover modifier * pawn stance (all three already tracked by the game) * potential modifiers from equipment (camouflage)

Whenever an object is within vision range of a pawn a check is made if it is within vision * visibility tiles and if so it is displayed. From a technical perspective all one would have to do is implement a new pawn stat and potentially two new equipment modifiers, as well as some calculations using already existing values in order to create a fairly in-depth Fog of War system. Beyond that most of the work would be the graphical representation as well as performance. I don't think it would take Tynan much more than a week or two to implement such a system however.

Some remaining questions would be how to handle static objects. For cover objects such as chunks and sandbags there is already a fillage stat which could be used in place of body size. Trees and walls could always be visible from maximum range. For goods a global constant could be set as I don't think we need to model different visibility of strawberries vs granite chunks.

The vision system in stealth games isn't much more complicated than that either BTW, all they do in addition is calculate cones of vision for enemies as well as cover obstruction which I don't think is necessary for Rimworld.

That's just the vision part.

Have you considered the problems with path finding algorithms?
Hauling would have to be completely reworked for one thing.
Scouting behaviour would have to be implemented.

I think the performance would take a massive hit from the constant visibility checks, especially since every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour and therefore for the prioritization calculation.

I'm sure there are other factors I haven't considered.

IMHO FoW could be interesting but it is in no way easy to implement properly.

Quote from: Regret on May 15, 2015, 08:09:15 AM
That's just the vision part.

Have you considered the problems with path finding algorithms?
Hauling would have to be completely reworked for one thing.
Scouting behaviour would have to be implemented.

I think the performance would take a massive hit from the constant visibility checks, especially since every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour and therefore for the prioritization calculation.

I'm sure there are other factors I haven't considered.

IMHO FoW could be interesting but it is in no way easy to implement properly.

Path finding wouldn't have to change much, nor would hauling. They would still operate as they are except in the cases that an object somehow moved/was destroyed. Rather than changing course immediately as is the case now it is changed when the object's former location comes into view. The standard three-state FoW shows things like buildings in their last observed state and only updates once it comes into view again, I don't see why the same could not apply here.

The only thing that would need a major rework I think would be hunting. Since animals change their locations constantly they could have moved a fair distance from their last known position. A solution could be to make it a bill at the butchers table "Hunt animal" and then the hunter goes out looking for animals.

For scouting, we already have timetables. Simply add another option "patrol" during which a colonist will go around the edges of the homezone (or, if you want to put in extra effort make a new patrol zone so it can be better customized).

I'm not sure what you mean by "every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour". You don't need to calculate vision 60 times a second nor is it needed for almost every behaviour. The performance would take a hit, sure but I don't think it would be significantly bigger than say, the new needs system adding several new variables to track for each pawn.

Quote from: NoImageAvailable on May 15, 2015, 08:33:43 AM

Quote from: Regret on May 15, 2015, 08:09:15 AM
That's just the vision part.

Have you considered the problems with path finding algorithms?
Hauling would have to be completely reworked for one thing.
Scouting behaviour would have to be implemented.

I think the performance would take a massive hit from the constant visibility checks, especially since every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour and therefore for the prioritization calculation.

I'm sure there are other factors I haven't considered.

IMHO FoW could be interesting but it is in no way easy to implement properly.

Path finding wouldn't have to change much, nor would hauling. They would still operate as they are except in the cases that an object somehow moved/was destroyed. Rather than changing course immediately as is the case now it is changed when the object's former location comes into view. The standard three-state FoW shows things like buildings in their last observed state and only updates once it comes into view again, I don't see why the same could not apply here.

The only thing that would need a major rework I think would be hunting. Since animals change their locations constantly they could have moved a fair distance from their last known position. A solution could be to make it a bill at the butchers table "Hunt animal" and then the hunter goes out looking for animals.

For scouting, we already have timetables. Simply add another option "patrol" during which a colonist will go around the edges of the homezone (or, if you want to put in extra effort make a new patrol zone so it can be better customized).

I'm not sure what you mean by "every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour". You don't need to calculate vision 60 times a second nor is it needed for almost every behaviour. The performance would take a hit, sure but I don't think it would be significantly bigger than say, the new needs system adding several new variables to track for each pawn.

Hauler behaviour is based on what is haulable, a hauler would only haul things that he thinks are there, that means that everytime a part of the map is explored the hauler needs to recalculate whether he needs to haul or not.

The part I bolded would help quite a bit with the performance, I was thinking about this quite differently.

What the end result for performance would be is unknown to me, it's something to keep an eye on of course.

NoImageAvailable,

I think you'll understand if I don't answer by quoting. As pointed out by the moderator if we keep doing so it can only get unbearable. So please believe that I'm honestly addressing what I see as our points of disagreement, simply in a more global manner.
Plus it seem clear that we are both over-interpreting each other quotes out of context (or too specific context) ... and venting passive aggressive personal attack under the resulting irritation.

On the "suspense" subject, I would like to know what you think of Alfred Hitchcock's opinion about the common confusion of suspense with surprise (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/728496-there-is-a-distinct-difference-between-suspense-and-surprise-and).
To me, this is very relevant to our disagreement movie or game.
Before the Event you didn't know the raid's size and weaponry. Knowing you are currently 'in a Raid Event' make it slightly more pressing, but only seeing the full scale and weaponry of the raid force make you say "holy shit".
Reducing the distance at which you become aware don't make a difference.

- Sub point "Chess"
The objective of my Chess analogy was to show that you definitively achieve uncertainty & tension through sheer number of piece  and possibility. Then I meant to say that by reducing the field of vision the player simply consider less parameters at once... unless you build mechanic to fight off the FoW precisely to retrieve the parameters needed for strategy (leading back to scout-induced omniscience). Hence "the only point of FoW is to fight the FoW"

On the gameplay aspect,  (EDIT) How 'strategic' do you think FoW will make RW ?  (I meant 'wargame' as the RTS style game yes) A few here clearly want a wargame, but in different way...not always compatible.
So : Where do you put your lower and upper limit yourself ?
Me, I consider that Rimworld's particular use of Events/StorytellerAI, small team combat, macro-management and deeper characterization are definite indicators that the game scope is meant for small-scale survival with occasional home-defense. Not tracking/defeating permanent threats (or longer than, the say, 10 days long siege), nor for constant information-warfare, and definitely not for 'Colony versus Colony'.
So my lower limit is 0 scout and upper limit "as many as events require".

On the storytelling aspect, you won't deny that the point of having user-interaction is to allow us to shape our game experience, and that our choices is what make a cannibal-colony different from a paradise resort or a simple survivor-camp who escape into space.
So I think our point of contention is whether or not having FoW would harms the wide range of play-style allowed as 'normal' by the Storyteller. Keeping in mind the balance requirement : Requiring (as opposite to making occasionally useful) to have even 1 or 2 constant Patrol/scout is no small change for a game balanced around 3 to 10 colonists.

- Subpoint scout/patrol&balance :
My answer on this are :
1) Many don't want to be forced to need a near-permanent scout/patrol, to survive or just to see. They like the omniscience.
2) If you make the gameplay require a full-time scout/patrol, you need to balance the game so that feeding him is not penalizing since it's 'normal'. You imply that we could 'stay blind' but sincerely we both know you (and some other FoW proponent) want more obligation to scout than that.
3) Distance&vision balance, because walking speed are mostly equal those are critical factor, the balance will be touchy

I suggest an experiment : Take a screenshot Zoomed-out, Put a colonist at the furthest distance you imagine on patrolling, paint a circle around what you want his field of vision(blue) sniper(red) to be. It should give a basis to judge FoW on. From here you could expend the experiment by timing how far one can keep a zone "secured" ...etc
I won't do myself because I'm biasedI do not share the belief that a permanent OR slowly-regenerating Fog will lead to improvement. However, in the hope of refuting some baseless accusation, I'll suggest more Events based on dissimulation-of-information and that are truly not "classic FoW" :

Idea 1 : Unaffiliated 'visitor' are traveling through the map. they seem to be carrying something. You could send someone to know what, or arrest them, but they might become hostile.
Idea 2 : Unaffiliated 'visitor' are coming near your base, you need to talk/arrest them to know if they are truly neutral, they can randomly become hostile /grab something high-value and run away.
Idea 3 : Stop notifying where the mad animal(s) is. It should give you enough incentive to draft one/more colonist put them as guard and wait until they get attacked.
Idea 4 : An actual thick fog : Pawn/raider path-finding get erratic if not in brightly lit zone or destination too far. Cyborg/mech less affected.
Idea 5 : Outside exploration, you don't know what you'll find, you'll need a prepared team, there might be shrouded area until you enter AND you can apply different time rules if needed for balance.

Lastly, yes, I'm dropping the Shrine subject. I've said all I though pertinent about it and it was not leading us anywhere (too context specific).

I think there is an ongoing assumption amongst those arguing anti-fog of war that nothing else would end up changing with the introducing of FoW.  Yes, there are new things that need to be balanced with FoW (just as with any new mechanic). 

For example, events.  Currently we do have a fog of war that is effectively the edge of the map that fogs are knowledge of the occurrence of events.  As a matter of computational convenience we don't make events until they are known, but perceived from the perspective of FoW it looks different: An event happens, say raiders decide to launch pods at us.  we know nothing about an event until it enters are field of view, which is currently the whole map(with a few exceptions).  When it does enter our field of view, we know everything.  Adding in a more refined FoW allows for an in between phase, where we know that something has happened ... because of wolves howling, observing drop pods falling in the distance, or the sound of gunfire ... but we don't know exactly what has happened. 

Keg: this goes to your question of suspense versus surprise.  All we have now is surprise, because currently we are in a state of no knowledge followed by SURPISE, an event has happened and by the way here is everything you might want to know immediately after, or at least as soon as you like.  For an event to really create suspense, and not just surprise, it is necessary to provide bits of information, hints, that build up to the complete picture so that each bit of information adds to the sense of foreboding, dread, terror, or joy, until finally at last complete knowledge is attained and you can transition to the denouement.

Addressing another point, scouting.  It has been implied that one needs to scout out the whole map all the time and dedicate an individual to doing this.  Well, if you have a hunter, that will probably happen anyways, but it is far from clear that it would be necessary.  Frankly, the only reason I am generally interested in far parts of the map where my colonists aren't is if I know that there is something there, say from an event (SURPRISE!).  Most of the time, the area that will need to be scouted will naturally be scouted via farming or other activities, with occasional scouting parties when hints of events (Suspense!) draw one out.

Finally, it seems obvious that technology research will enable one to expand one's view either by building hidden cameras from scyther parts, infrared sensors, drones, or geostationary spy satellites.  The choice between pursuing such technologies v. other technologies that might increase productivity or joy seems to me like a reasonable thing to make a player choose between.

If there is one thing this thread tells me, Keg is a minority who is resisting because he cannot give up his omniscience.

Again, this is not about how FoW might compare with normal gameplay so much as how it may change your gameplay.

All of which could be resolved with one tickbox and a slider. Seriously.

Epic idea!... We could call the new game "FogWorld"  ;D

I'm going to post here, but it's a 6 page thread full of huge responses, so forgive me if what I say has already been said, I just glanced over posts that seemed to get quoted a lot. The first thing I want to mention is everyone seems to be saying "omniscience" a lot like that's what this game has, but with the exception of places behind mountains, there is no omniscience in this game. The standard map is 250x250 sqaures, which assuming a square is 2-feet x 2-feet (based on a person taking one square and a standard 5x5 room being 10 ft x 10 ft, which is close to normal) is only 500 feet x 500 feet big (close to 150m x 150m for metric people). now assuming you build in close to the center, that leaves 250 feet (~76m) to see the end of the map, not even the length of a football field, its like you are saying you are omniscient every time you go to a football game and sit at one end of the stadium. FoW would be pointless in this game simply because every time you step outside of your base you see the whole map

In my opinion, and I could be over seeing something, with the above statement in mind FoW brings absolutely nothing to the table, positive nor negative, because if you ever needed to find something outside of your walls you just walk out and see everything. If it was made in some kind of you can see everything in front of you (easily to the edge of the map no matter what size) but nothing behind you, you would have to adjust to constantly changing fov angles based on what direction every pawn is looking, and it would probably kill performance, especially on lower end machines

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 15, 2015, 05:47:03 PM
If there is one thing this thread tells me, Keg is a minority who is resisting because he cannot give up his omniscience.

Again, this is not about how FoW might compare with normal gameplay so much as how it may change your gameplay.

All of which could be resolved with one tickbox and a slider. Seriously.

no keg is not in the minority. I don't want tynan wasting programming time and balance time on useless fow. with the size of maps, it is not needed period. A simple slider would not solve it, as tynan would have to spend MONTHS doing the programming, just to implement something that does NOT fit with the original back story, or the basis of the game.

Firstly, you can go give us some HARD FACTS to prove why Keg and some guy like you are always arguing against FoW, claiming that Tynan would take months to program FoW and balance it and support your allegations that this suggestion does not fit the game in any sane way.

Quote from: TLHeart on May 16, 2015, 02:01:12 AMI don't want tynan wasting programming time and balance time on useless fow. with the size of maps, it is not needed period. A simple slider would not solve it, as tynan would have to spend MONTHS doing the programming, just to implement something that does NOT fit with the original back story, or the basis of the game.

Tynan estimated 6 days to implement standard fog of war. That likely doesn't include balance. I'm fine if he just implements the toggle option and leaves balance to modders. In vanilla think of it as a hardcore mode.

Quote from: Darth Fool on May 15, 2015, 05:39:19 PM
I think there is an ongoing assumption amongst those arguing anti-fog of war that nothing else would end up changing with the introducing of FoW.  Yes, there are new things that need to be balanced with FoW (just as with any new mechanic). 

No this is precisely because everything lead me to believe it would require a major change of the gameplay (and see better alternative) that I'm criticizing the idea. (defining major change here as : "make the game less interesting for many" and/or "Make Tynan lie on its advertisement").
We can also clearly see that some proponent here won't accept a compromise that isn't said "major change".

About Events : If you look at it more closely, I think you might realize that Events are exactly about reproducing -in a controlled&balanced way- what you would feel only by blind-luck with a FoW. The surprise, of unknown hostile attacking in various way. Is very the point of not telling you before that you will be attacked, how and what you should prepare for.
Making some Events more gradual, do not require a permanent FoW, only more specific Events.
I'm betting that once Tynan make an AI that cannot be beaten without a little thinking, you will appreciate being given time to plan (opposite to being punished for not having scouts).

About suspense : You seem to understand that ultimately tension reach its peak only when you are given full knowledge of the threat. However your argument break down on the same point than other : ultimately you are only delaying when we get aware of how dangerous threat is... and there is no added tension in guerrilla-fighting isolated raiders or just knowing by delayed mean (if at all) how big is the threat.

Lastly, you demonstrate again my point that the only point of FoW is to have to fight the FoW. Aka : "Do we make seeing a part of the management ?" just for the hell of it.
This "sub-management" can easily become an hassle if a game wasn't built for it.

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 15, 2015, 05:47:03 PM
If there is one thing this thread tells me, Keg is a minority who is resisting because he cannot give up his omniscience.

More like I'm the only one who bother providing long counter-argumentation to a bunch of everyday fans who don't seem keen to accept that the subject is much more fundamental, tricky and far-reaching, than what they know/believe.
And you Anduin... let's just say you are toxic. (belittling other for example...)

Considering the length of the thread, and the occasional condescension for implying that FoW wouldn't be a good thing, followed by WALL OF TEXT built out of fabulous claim that FoW will improve everything (with apparently no need for better proof).

No. No, I'm not surprised not a lot of people is arguing against your suggestion. For Starter they are probably all busy enjoying the game and the creativity its omniscience 'enhanced-information-display' allow.
Anyway we are all waiting for a true game developer to take the responsibility and do the actual work.

QuoteFirstly, you can go give us some HARD FACTS to prove why Keg and some guy like you are always arguing against FoW, claiming that Tynan would take months to program FoW and balance it and support your allegations that this suggestion does not fit the game in any sane way.

You should be the one giving us "HARD FACTS" that FoW is easy to implement, balance, change nothing fundamentals, will be appreciated by most, will not suffer the same problem that led to its earlier version to be removed (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=146.msg1986#msg1986) and that there is no other way to improve it than "yours way"... if you can agree on what it would be like.

I do actually wish FoW-proponents to find someone capable of making a mods to test the idea and prove me wrong.

The first half of text was something I could not make sense of.

Firstly, I'm not downplaying here, the number of unique users who participated (posted) in this thread has been supportive of the idea (discounting abstentions.) I'm stating the simple truth of observation, not exaggerating it for the sake of belittling Keg.

Define proof, what we have here are soft proof that is based on discussion logic, the "In theory, it works". If you want hard proof;

Quote
"I do actually wish FoW-proponents to find someone capable of making a mods to test the idea and prove me wrong."

Quote"No. No, I'm not surprised not a lot of people is arguing against your suggestion. For Starter they are probably all busy enjoying the game and the creativity its omniscience 'enhanced-information-display' allow."

Assumption. Cite your source.

Quote"...and that there is no other way to improve it than "yours way"... if you can agree on what it would be like."

Not if you have derailed this discussion into some messy argument and counter-argument first, 'toxic'.

If you want us to agree, let this be a discussion and split your arguments off to some other thread. This is not your playground to close.

Quote"You should be the one giving us "HARD FACTS" that FoW is easy to implement, balance, change nothing fundamentals, will be appreciated by most"

Why don't I give the recursive answer and say "You should be the one giving us "HARD FACTS" that FoW is hard to implement, balance, change the fundamentals and will not appreciated by most.

Firstly, by vote of the OP, this suggestion is already appreciated by more people than not.
"balance, change the fundamentals"
Secondly, you are currently disrupting this discussion thread so they are moot points.
Thirdly, I paraphrase from someone else that "Tynan would take less than 6 days to program FoW" (Not including balancing).

'I am toxic to this argumentative thread"..."I am trying to restore this thread to a discussion."

Balancing FoW could be tricky. Think about it this way - if the other factions also have limited vision (and unless you like cheaty AI, they would need to) then they need to scout your base before they even think about attacking. And that information can be rendered obsolete quite quickly, especially if you know that they're scouting and therefore change the layout.

It's one thing to say that the feature could be added in a relatively short period of time, but quite another to say that it would have full in-game support. It could, based on the necessary additions in the changelog of A11 for traps, but in my opinion you would be looking at some more integration of FoW and a period of testing before you could call it a feature which you would be happy with.

Or, if Tynan were to add support to mod FoW back in, it might take a while longer but you could definitely move things forward with balance at the forefront.

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 16, 2015, 02:04:49 PM
Why don't I give the recursive answer and say "You should be the one giving us "HARD FACTS" that FoW is hard to implement, balance, change the fundamentals and will not appreciated by most.

Firstly, by vote of the OP, this suggestion is already appreciated by more people than not.
"balance, change the fundamentals"
Secondly, you are currently disrupting this discussion thread so they are moot points.
Thirdly, I paraphrase from someone else that "Tynan would take less than 6 days to program FoW" (Not including balancing).

I think that surely the burden of proof must always lie in the proponent rather than the opponent, no? If your mechanic says that he's going to fit nitro to your car, without the car being broken or unsuitable for your purposes, it's down to him to prove that this will be a good thing, not for you to prove that it has the potential to explode or destabilise the car in a fundamental way. Similarly, RW without FoW is not currently borked, but the implementation of a major change always has the possibility of producing major issues. I think that those people who are urging caution or who are campaigning against FoW have legitimate concerns and fears.

With regard to the pro/anti split, the top two votes are for those who actively want FoW, the bottom two are for those against, and the middle for those who have no strong feelings either way (who I would count as in the 'not appreciating' figure) which takes the vote currently to 40 who actively want FoW, and 40 who don't actively want it. Even if you take out the moderates, it comes to 40 who actively want it and 31 who really don't want it and 40 to 31 is hardly a massive majority. Personally, I'm in the middle.

Its true Kegereneku's nailed it, like many others I got no time to write epic epic walls of text to point out what already been said to the few who will just disagree with emotion to the point that are losing the true concept of a civil discussion. With what little free time I get to myself I spend playing the game and a little of it here (not enough fer wall texting) I sort of feel its all been said in the first 3 pages of this thread and the original thread.
It is a massive game changer and with the wording of this poll and 80 odd peeps voted so far with what? roughly 10% more are for fog o war. Is that enough to bring it back?? it was in game and was taken out because it didn't really work. Are they any gamers that played that version here to help this thread?
Lots of peeps say they are programmers/designers and that its easy to implement fog o war. Well why not do it? Show everyone how amazing the game will be. Become Fogworld's champion! Peace

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 16, 2015, 02:19:50 AM
Firstly, you can go give us some HARD FACTS to prove why Keg and some guy like you are always arguing against FoW, claiming that Tynan would take months to program FoW and balance it and support your allegations that this suggestion does not fit the game in any sane way.

FOW does not fit with the backstory.  Also, when a pawn can walk to the edge of the map 4 times in 10 hours, the distance we are talking about is under 5 miles, not much is happening in that area we do not know about.... a few animals will wander to different locations, but we will see a raid coming. NO need for FOW. Especially a raid that drops from the atmosphere, with the ensuing heat trails.

A single person could sneak in without notice, but any raid will be detected quickly.

It is up to you to provide what benefit FOW would provide to a survival game.

Well this post certainly went on a bit since the last time i checked in.

To avoid addressing point-by-point - which didn't went so well the last time i did - i'll try to stick to major points, specially since some of the points have already been addressed, with the expected diffidence. Since a lot has been written, my response may seem "all over", if required please inquire and i'll be more precise.

Quoterexx1888

QuoteLets leave keg alone, on other topics his opinions are objectively correct, an hes pretty nice. It took me a few weeks of forum hopping to see, but its true.

By no means we (or at least I) are on a personal vendetta against Keg. I appreciate his input elsewhere and even his good sense on this very topic in reversing personal jabbing, the seemly picking is due to his vehement defense of anti-fow and that's about it, i'll always agree or disagree with people on a subject by subject basis, not on affection. Likewise Anduin might come off as strong sometimes, but his punctual remarks are always welcome even if we disagree, which is something we did in the past but has no affect in supporting my opinions here.

The paragraph above is just to emphasize that my complete disagreement with anti-fow arguments have nothing to do with personal feelings or emotional clinging to "being right", i hope we're all past that.

Now, as for the suspension bit:

I'm really baffled by the side discussion regarding the validity of fog of war in creating suspension. Frankly, anti-fow argument is already based on personal opinion, but disregarding the suspension making mechanic behind the concept of FoW is simply wrong.

QuoteKegereneku

, as i said before, as much as i appreciate that quote (being a cinephile and whatnot), you simply can't compare movie to game. Each medium has its own language, some techniques are borrowed from others but each has its own twists. Suspension making even differs depending on each genre.

Still regarding that quote, please not that Hitchcock never imply that suspense requires omniscience. Information yes, but never omniscience.

Watch Rear Window. The protagonist, with his busted leg, sits all day watching his neighbors until he notices something strange going on in the front condo. He never saw the woman being killed nor his "allies" did. The entire PoV is attached to his line of sight (in game terms), he has no omniscience nor the audience does (we watch what he watches), yet suspense is achieved. Why? Because suspense doesn't require full disclosure of information, it requires just enough information to generate anticipation. There's hope (we will catch the killer, the girlfriend won't get caught) , there's fear (can we catch the killer? the girlfriend will get caught!) and uncertainty (how it will unfold?).

In a scene, the protagonist dials the killer and setups a fake meeting creating an opportunity so the gf can go into the killer's apartment. Since we are locked to his PoV we never know when the killer is going to arrive, but we know  he might arrive.  (hope: she will evade the killer. Fear: the killer will catch her). Now, while we can arguably discuss that the full disclosure of the killer location and walking speed could still achieve suspense (i wont say no, but i like not knowing where he is) how would that unfold in a game? If you are just the leg busted guy that's the same as spectating/movie, so lets focus on the gf. You are her and you can magically see the location and speed of the killer. How will that provide suspense?

In Alien and Aliens, we are shown just enough to fear the xenophorm, but all interactions work under the uncertainty of its location. When I said that FoW could have (or better: SHOULD) the aid of sound cues, music, text and whatever, you dismissed it as special effects, but these "special effects" are exactly what we use in the industry to create all the atmosphere required to create tension and suspense.

Then, in Touch of Evil, we have a sequence shot where a couple enters a car and moves toward a border. Previously, a hidden figure approaches the car and plants something. We don't know what it is but isn't good.  (note: we see him putting but we have no information of what it really is. No omniscience). Then we spend the next 3 minutes either forgetting about it or rooting so it's not something bad. Then, just as they leave the car and are about to kiss, the car explodes.  Of course, if you have no idea that something has been planted and it simply explodes, that's only surprise (and frustration) but my point is that you can't directly compare movie to game, if this scene wouldn't work (as is) in a game under FoW, it wouldn't work under omniscience as well: what's the point of entering the car if you know there's a bomb?

Now, I know that you frequently state an idea of controlled FoW, but frankly, the same could be applied to FoW: controlled omniscience. It's only a matter of what you'd like to be more pervasive.

To sum: A story never shows too much nor too little, it shows precisely what it needs (or so it should be) (*inserts gandalf)

Quote(...)To me, as I gave reasons for across the entire thread a "classic" FoW is only relevant for Wargame. And would IMO harms the storytelling & survival aspect of Rimworld, as well as impede Events creation.

That's a shallow and used argument. It was used in a previous topic and several people, including myself, have already established that several games other than wargames make use of Fog of War. Nevermind that it should include an *IMHO* there.

Then i have to point out that there's Fog of War [concept] and Fog of War [implementation]. As already said, the concept is used in MANY games (i'll guess: the majority) and relates to the struggle of information. The implementation of fog of war in games like an fps are what i would say "natural", but it doesn't make it any less a reality. The nature of strategy games and its distinct view requires an artificial method to emulate this state, thus was FoW [black veil] created. I'm not saying that's how rimworld should roll, i'll even agree that there was little innovation in improving this system, but i'm saying that it's a reliable approach and there's nothing wrong with it.

There's nothing in FoW (concept or implementation) that makes it a wargame. Frankly, you're the only one bringing wargames here. Why are you not, for instance, arguing against direct pawn selection? That's a feature in wargames as well. What gives? For instance, is Neo Scavenger a wargame? Is Don't starve now? Is civilization? Is Dead State? Dungeon Keeper? Torment? Fallout?

Is stratego any less of a board game because you can't see your foes pieces? There's chance involved, but so there is skill, and yes, there are not any less possible strategies available in stratego because there's a "FoW". If you are worried because of chance spoiling things, remember that in poker tournaments there's always the known champions.

QuoteMarvinKosh

QuoteI think that it is unreasonable punitive to require the player to draft colonists to go clear fog

Marvin, first you have to ask yourself why is it so punitive. Why? because it will hurt the economy? What will happen if it hurts, starvation? Unlikely, most likely you won't build sentry #22 so you hold off wave #81. There seems to be this idea that FoW will focus on war when it oh so much on the contrary. Rimworld is already war focused, if anything, FoW could provide another venues to provide strife that is not synonymous with invasions. There's no one saying that we HAVE to be invaded by someone just to test how nasty fow is, some people might just enjoy having a pawn strolling and seeing things as he goes.

Again: The game is about managing needs and security and information is (or can become) a need. Saying that doing so is annoying is a very analytical response for something it shouldn't. It reminds me of the joy suggestion post that tynan posted, where a few people criticized the idea of their pawns having time off because doing so was "wasteful" and "inefficient" ( i don't recall the exact words, but that was the gist). Tynam then reminded that the game is exactly about doing these sort of things, which i agree.

QuoteTurps

Speaking about emotion, you really bring nothing to the discussion despite a snark emotional "i don't wanna FoW". (no offense meant, just responding with the same tone)

Making walls-o-text has no saying on what kind of people we are or the righteousness of our worlds, jut our interest in the subject. Likewise, inability or aversion to read these words have no impact on the veracity of either side.

According to Tynan FoW was taken out because it confused people. That's not a surprise. If we had FoW now, it would be hell. The game was and is still not prepared for FoW, but that has nothing to do with its feasibility should it be given a go.

Quotepuddlejumper448

Puddle, i understand what you are trying to get at, but first have in mind that the scale is not realistic, if a map were indeed to be 100m~ we certainly wouldn't take hours to cross it, which is what happens under that logic. Everything has to be approximated or abstracted, just like the world map quadrants aren't meant to be only the map chosen, which would make the world really reallyyy small.

As pointed out already, obvious landmarks such as mountains would be a given, but the essence lies in the minutia of things you can't discern in the distance, which is what the topic should be about really (instead of de-railing every f* time because someone doesn't want FoW.
The type of discussion we should be having is exactly this:  what should we always be allowed to see? Mountains, sure. People? No, yes? depends on the distance? Gradual information disclosure? We can have a large field of vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but no, it's not the same as having omniscience because of other map features such as distance (already mentioned), walls and buildings, geographical accidents, altitude variations, etc.
Remembering a issue (bringing the colonies out in the open), a positive feature of FoW is that while dwarfing is safer open colonies enjoy a better field of view.

Quote from: Johnny Masters on May 16, 2015, 06:43:30 PM

Puddle, i understand what you are trying to get at, but first have in mind that the scale is not realistic, if a map were indeed to be 100m~ we certainly wouldn't take hours to cross it, which is what happens under that logic. Everything has to be approximated or abstracted, just like the world map quadrants aren't meant to be only the map chosen, which would make the world really reallyyy small.

I get what you mean, but I think you are wrong about one thing. The scale is very realistic in this game. People occupy one square, the chunky ones tend to take up close to the whole square,which would make the squares 2' each. A 5x5 room comes out to 10' x 10', colonists are just fine with 5x5 rooms space wise so its safe to assume its 10' x 10', that's a reasonable size room irl. Plants are planted one square each, and 2' apart is a good planting situation irl, (2-3' being ideal) The stools they sit on to eat are about 1.5' x 1'  because they don't take up the whole square, exactly the right size irl for a normal stool. Tables are 8'x4', a normal sized table for 8 people. Their twin beds are 2'x4' ft, which is a little small, arguably the only non realistic distance in the game. Deer are 2'x4', fairly close to real life size. Squirrels are ~1.5'x1', a realistic size. power lines are about .3' (hard to tell exactly), its just copper wire, basically realistic. I could keep going if you wish.

You example points to it taking hours to walk to the end of the map and says its because distance is unrealistic, but distance is very realistic, time isn't. It takes an hour to eat, and hour to play a game of horseshoes with yourself, and hour to take a walk, but it takes nearly seconds to build walls. 10 days in a month, 120 days in a year. Time is the obvious unrealistic part of the equation and it has no effect on FoV, so I still think my original argument stands.

Edit: 120 days in a year, not 100 dummy lol

It's punitive to have the player manually direct a colonist to a vantage point because colonists are squishy and do not react well to bullets. Or arrows.

For example, I would never send one guy alone to scout out what's in the fog. Bare minimum, I would have someone following behind to provide covering fire if they find bad guys. Your own personal caution level may vary.

So two colonists to scout an area, and then when I'm done with that I'll have to do it again tomorrow.

My chances of actually detecting something moving in to attack and having some advance warning are not good, unless I have more colonists actively searching. Every day.

If I don't do that then I get surprise attacked every time a raid is generated. If I do, it's a surprise further away from the base but the only place where I have a fair amount of cover to hide behind and good sight lines is a surprisingly fortified area which is... my base!

Also, the camera can only cover so much of the map at once, so while this recon is going on I have to zoom out as far as I can and pan around watching for bad guys.

Want me to get behind this idea? Then give me the interface and tools to do recon properly. That is, lay the groundwork for this idea before arguing that it is worthwhile. Otherwise, it's basically just guesswork whether it adds what it is supposed to add without also adding too much micromanagement, or getting colonists gunned down if their AI just can't handle automated scouting.

Can we now then start by discussing the mechanics of the game and not it's gameplay feasibility?
I hope that through the discussion of the mechanics, we can clear things up like time management and the scouting mechanics.

Quote from: MarvinKosh on May 16, 2015, 10:08:38 PM

If I don't do that then I get surprise attacked every time a raid is generated. If I do, it's a surprise further away from the base but the only place where I have a fair amount of cover to hide behind and good sight lines is a surprisingly fortified area which is... my base!

Also, the camera can only cover so much of the map at once, so while this recon is going on I have to zoom out as far as I can and pan around watching for bad guys.

It seems to me that you are forgetting the notifications.  There is no reason you could not still get the raid notifications just because of FoW.  The difference would be that you would not be able to immediately see what the raid is composed of.  So the, "Raiders from Pirates of the Carrageenan are attacking from the West.  They  [are attacking immediately | will set up before attack | are preparing to siege the colony]" notification would tell you that you need to consider sending out scouts and whether to send them in force or not. 

Quote
Want me to get behind this idea? Then give me the interface and tools to do recon properly. That is, lay the groundwork for this idea before arguing that it is worthwhile. Otherwise, it's basically just guesswork whether it adds what it is supposed to add without also adding too much micromanagement, or getting colonists gunned down if their AI just can't handle automated scouting.

Of course it is guesswork.  Just like item degradation, joy, having to eat, were all guesswork before being implemented.  It is also guesswork to say that such tools which would eliminate the annoyances of FoW micromanagment can not or would not be added. As I have said elsewhere, this topic seems to evoke in people such deep opinions that I think the only way to convince either side is to create a mod that does this.  Unfortunately, making such a mod is not trivial.  Since the changes needed would likely require some deep links into the guts of the Rimworld code and the code is not open-source (it's not exactly entirely closed source either), making such a mod without Tynan's building in support for it at some level will be difficult.

Jhonny Master, please die in a fireI appreciate the more diplomatic tone. I believe that you are also in a quest for truths on the subject, may it come from you, or other.

Now let's get back to business constructive exchange of opinion.

QuoteStill regarding that quote, please not that Hitchcock never imply that suspense requires omniscience. Information yes, but never omniscience.

The error in your logic is that the very information required for the suspense, is the one a (classic) FoW would hide, and as I argued before (to NoImage) overwhelming information can be used effectively to mess-up with expectation through the sheer number of possibility.

I would like to point out that it have been awfully common here to use 'omniscience' as a derogatory terms although this 'Enhanced Information Display' is a feature in itself, other game simply have less parameters, different visual clue, and/or different constraint than Rimworld.

About "Rear Windows", I'm sorry but even if I had seen the movie, there is too much critical information/context/subtlety/director-intent missing for me (or anyone actually) to recognize your logic as either valid or wrong.
I don't think analyzing random movie scene will not lead us to an understanding.

The Hitchcock  "Bomb under the table"  (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/728496-there-is-a-distinct-difference-between-suspense-and-surprise-and) was precisely to bring forward carefully-chosen parameters.
Taking on that example. The main limiting factor in storymaking is how much information pertaining to the threat you can introduce/show before overwhelming or confusing the spectator, not how little you need.
- Knowing there is a bomb under the table is already something worrying.
- Knowing the bomb will explode at a certain time, make it even more worrying.
Now if I introduced the yield of the bomb (flashback or pause-accessible knowledge), I would make worrying any characters move that is getting in or out this yield.
Lastly, if I introduced a heroes running to tell the character (without making clear whether anyone is likely to survive)... I'd be adding a new source of worry.

Hence the final say of Hitchcock : The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed.

How it apply in Rimworld :
At the scale we are talking about, the "right information for tension" are boolean.
- is the threat/entity localized ? : Yes/No
- is the threat level identifiable ? : Yes/No
- Do the threat require immediate preparation ? : Yes/No

Things is with FoW :
- knowing there is 10 entity don't distinguish a bunch of tribal from raider or mechs
- knowing how threatening each are isn't important if you can isolate and overwhelm them. (wargame basic tactic)
- And knowing the threat is coming, is no different from an Event making them appear on you.

QuoteTo sum: A story never shows too much nor too little, it shows precisely what it needs (or so it should be) (*inserts gandalf)

Yes a MOVIE with no pause button mustn't give pointless information, just like a GAME do not make a outcome depend of... blind luck. As said, the error in your logic is that knowing exactly what make a threat, a threat, is precisely what is needed.
Thus "FoW will impede storytelling and event creation"

This is also why, Jhonny Master, I keep saying "The only point of FoW is to fight FoW"

It was pretty clear, even without lurking on your answer to MarvinKosh, that you want make it a strategy game which as argued back and forth all along would significantly change the scope of the game.
So the implicit point of this discussion is to make FoW-proponent recognize/admitthe difficulty as well as acknowledge that other don't share their specific wish for 'permanent scout' or 'permanent threats'.

If you want a compromise, we have to isolate the aspect/features unnecessary or considered unacceptable from the one actually researched to provide (if possible) alternative.

Remember : a Permanent/regenerating FoW is only ONE solution, not the best one.

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 17, 2015, 02:24:30 AM
Can we now then start by discussing the mechanics of the game and not it's gameplay feasibility?
I hope that through the discussion of the mechanics, we can clear things up like time management and the scouting mechanics.

Before you build a feature, you have to know whether or not it is possible. Talking like it is feasible, do not make it feasible. You have to prove it.

Since the entire mechanic of "FoW" rely on being able to scout through pawn, the best way I see to start would be to get HARD DATA on that.
- calculate the time it take to visually cover a region.
- calculate how far you can go before requiring meal/sleep.
- estimate how far an event, enemy scout or a raid group must be to miss it.
- estimate how long you have to react to the event/raid in worse case condition.
- estimate how long you have to take care of the Raiders before Events start piling up.
- estimate how advantaged you have to be over your enemy for them to not see your scout and follow him home, or for you to follow them.
- estimate how much the raider have to know about where you are to know where to send the scout.
- see if you have to increase day length or speed
- Not forgetting to try out multiple walking speed to take into account that you might not have fast runner.

I suggested such experiment here (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=12366.msg132555#msg132555) using screenshot/Paint/Devmod.

But.but Keg! This is a discussion on Fog of War and not it's feasibility!
I would love you to create a different thread on the feasibility and have the mods lock it!

Johnny Master I apologize to you and all others that saw my comment as snarky, that certainly was not my intent. Being snarky or kicking anyone in a post is just not me and are a bit embarrassed at the response it got.

Totally agree with your thoughts on wall texting. However with my lifestyle I just literally do not have the time to put all my thoughts down to create a wall o text. To write something the length of ur post would take me idk 1-2 hrs, it would be poorly written and with twice as many commas than it needs lol.

Tynan did say it confused people but also said at the end of the comment "It's one of those ideas that seems good but just doesn't work out that well. RimWorld has had and lost several of those so far."

After all the years of gaming I reckon I've got a pretty good idea of my likes and dislikes in games so your gonna be pulling a miracle to change my thoughts on FoW and the same goes for me convincing you yeah?? Sorry if it comes across as "I don't wanna FoW" but if introduce to the game yeah I'd buy it and give it a go, everything else Tynan has done for the game has been fkn gold! I do agree with your comments if introduced now it would be hell, lots would have to change. Which is why I'm calling for people that played the game when FoW was in. Tell us what was confusing, how did it fail, what would you change to make it work, how would you tweek it, tell us something real and not just speculation, tell us everything? Please this thread needs your help!

Quote from: ZestyLemons on April 19, 2015, 04:55:48 AM
I think fog of war is too much of an RTS element and detracts from the stories of RimWorld overall.

It's also not very balanced - raiders and berserk animals automatically seek/find colonists, while the player wouldn't be able to see them or attack them back if they're in the fog of war.

when you just get down to it, rim-world has quite a few features a standard RTS has, controllable units, building, and of course the guys that try to kill you (well that kinda depends some RTS don't have violence)

my opinion, no Fog of war would be a bad idea, i like veiwing everything on the map and using that data to my advantage

I've been viewing this by mobile for the last week or two so have abstained from posting, and will essentially ignore most of the arguments above. While many of them are well thought out, they also are largely repetitive of all arguments on this topic in the past. Essentially, you either like FOW or you hate it.

I find MarvinKosh's comment here the most telling:

QuoteIt's punitive to have the player manually direct a colonist to a vantage point because colonists are squishy and do not react well to bullets. Or arrows.

No - it's perceived as punitive by anti-FOW, while pro-FOW actually enjoy the resulting tension/challenge. Steadfastly opposing development of a FOW option when starting a game is punitive to the 48.8% of players that are supportive of the concept (versus 38.3% against), assuming the poll here is even close to representative. The topic comes up regularly and with different posters requesting it over time, so clearly there is some substantial baseline of interest in this feature.

Rather than responding to the very impassioned views of those above, I'll instead describe my current views on a ideal FOW implementation which would not impinge on the gameplay of those against it.

Mechanics:

• When starting a new game, there is a check-box at the difficulty screen to enable fog of war. If enabled, FOW can not be switched off during that game.
• The terrain (ground/mountains) of the map is visible upon landing, per a scan from space before the crash, and remains visible through the fog of war. This includes unclaimed buildings.
• Anything on top of the terrain is invisible when shrouded by fog of war. This includes NPC pawns, animals, vegetation, unknown items and fires. What objects/characters are visible or not through the fog is modifiable.
• After being seen once an item remains visible.
• Fog of war is cleared by player controlled pawns' vision. This takes the form of a cone of radius r and width of angle a. The exact parameters of r and a are determined by the pawn's stats and (dis)abilities related to sight. Suggest a first try of r=20 and a=75% for a pawn in good health. A (perhaps) easier implementation is simply a=360. r and a easily modifiable.
• Walls and mountains block a pawn's vision.
• Vision distance r is reduced by some factor depending on the darkness of an area (or just during night time/extreme weather).
• When a pawn clears FOW with their vision, the visibility persists for time t even if the pawn immediately leaves the area. Suggest a t value of around 1 hour as a first try. Again, t is easily modifiable.
• t is shorter (i.e. re-shrouds faster) during night and extreme weather.
• A pawn can not fire upon a character unless it is visible. This means drafted snipers may need a spotter, or undrafted hunters may need to walk within visible distance of prey before firing. Force attack on a area of ground is still possible if covered by fog of war.
• Events are still announced via a message, but you can not jump to location (or see them, of course). Can be wholly disabled by mod.

AI changes:

• Recognizing this is a potential black hole of development time, I suggest no changes to AI except related to undrafted hunters.
• Hunters will only fire on prey once visible, and thus will need to walk close enough to them if shrouded. If prey is shrouded, hunters can still automatically track down that target using the auto-hunt beacon (or similar), or using their "tracking skill". My view is that this implementation would be more or less consistent with hunting in real life - just because you can not see/fire upon a elk right this second doesn't mean you don't know how to track one down in a forest.
• Enemy AI would remain unchanged, i.e. omnipotent with respect to vision. Fog of war is intended to create tension/challenge for the player, not the AI. Besides, there are apparently already some "fake" scout raider behaviors, I believe, to create the illusion of this without needing to achieve the singularity.

Items:

• Security cameras acquired by trade, with variable radius r and angle a - the vision here rotates (360/180) around a pole/wall they are installed with. Cost of the camera and its energy demand are determined by r and a.
• Binoculars of factor f change a pawn's vision parameters to r*f and a/f. Suggested to equip on hunters and snipers.
• A flying drone and launcher can be acquired by trade. The drone is launched in one direction and flies until it reaches the edge of the map, where it lands. All area within radius r of its flight path is illuminated. The drone must be hauled back to base before it can be launched again. Suggested use: when warning of a impending raid is received.
• Infrared radar, only by trade. Would show any shrouded animal/pawn as a red blip within the shroud, of a large enough size that it is hard to distinguish if there are multiple in one area. Chance of shorting out increases exponentially with continuous use/insufficient cool down.

Traits:

• Variety of traits related to fog of war are possible. Many obvious ones to buff/debuff r/a. Some interesting tradeoffs also possible, like ESP (can see through walls or with 360 degree).

I hope this makes clear that FOW would add to existing options and items, increasing player choice, rather than reducing them. I never play on Phoebe Base Builder, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included as an option in vanilla. Similarly, only some players are strong proponents of the Nutrient Paste Dispenser, but again that doesn't mean it is useless or worsening others' gameplay experience or was a waste of development time.

My guess is Tynan would only need to develop the mechanics listed above, and modders would flourish on the items and balance/tweaking side (e.g. the parameters of r/a/t). I think the potential "development-multiplier" from the modding community is a big reason to at least get the mechanics in place for the option earlier rather than later, even without any other items or balance. I at least would be extremely pleased if even just the mechanics were implemented. Keep in mind that Tynan said a 3-stage FOW (I think similar to what I describe in mechanics) would take days or week(s) but not months to implement.

Regarding discussion on the topic, it seems to me there are two meaningful discussions to be had which may inform Tynan:

• What a fog of war option should include, assuming it is implemented. In my view only those that are interested in playing with this option should participate in such a discussion - inevitably resolute opponents become trolls in such threads. For example, I don't rant on the forums about how the easier difficulties should be removed, or that the Joy system was a waste of development time.
• What major features should be implemented before fog of war. This naturally makes more sense for everyone (pro/against) to participate in. Ideally this would consist of arguments for a feature, rather than arguments against other features.

Unfortunately, so far this thread has also included plenty of a third type - pro-FOW vs anti-FOW, which is just a display of passion and trolling rather than reasonable discussion (in extreme cases). Perhaps the above two reasonable discussions could somehow be spun off as their own separate threads to hopefully be kept on topic and constructive, rather than the poisonous merry-go-round this one occasionally is.

There are largely repetitive of all arguments on this topic so i will say this:
No. RimWorld have too small maps for FOW. This isn't Warcraft with maps 2-3 larger than Rimworld maps.

Um, that's not an accurate representation of my viewpoint. I said that using colonists to manually explore FoW is a lot of micro and not a lot of payoff for doing it. I also made a subtle Hunt for Red October reference.

The designation or interface or whatever to say 'explore this area and then return to base' to allow for less micromanagement and smart autonomous exploration, isn't in the game. It would need to be added.

The point that I think should taken is that it's easy to get wrapped up arguing for or against instead of DTDF.

That's Designing the Damn Feature, by the way. :)

Fog of War is a very nuanced feature. You could say that there are features within the feature. So showering it with +1s or -1s isn't going to get it off the ground or sink it. As akiceabear said, there are (at least) two avenues of discussion worth exploring. So, I invite you to do that now.

Also, topic locked.