Ludeon Forums

Currently RimWorld has no fog of war. Player can see everything that is going on anywhere on the map. It makes it very easy to spot mineral veins and geothermal geysers at the start of a game, and later on it makes defense very easy since raiders always wait for the middle of the night to attack after hanging out in a corner of the map for a half day.

I guess "fog of war" is ill-named in the case of RimWorld. I personally think it should be named "story-inducing Uncertainty Veil" because it allows a lot of new behaviors for players:
- Scouting raiders positions when the raiders alert pops up
- Mounting search parties to look for survivors when the crashed pod alert rings
- Exploring to find minerals, geothermal geysers and resources stacks
- Building scout towers to increase view range, of course they would need to be powered and would be choice targets for raiders.

It goes along well with some character traits (near-sighted, eagle eye, nocturnal vision) to be translated in game terms.

I could see the Crash Pod computers building up a quick map of the area as you come in, so maybe you should know about obvious things like geysers.  Less so on minerals.

I'd agree with animals & pirates though.  The player could compensate by researching & building camera's & other spy gadgets (self powered, so you wouldn't have to run wires).  And of course, pirate tactics (if they're smart/led by pirate king) would be to disable those, so you can't see them.

Uncertainty Veil works, I'm definitely for the idea.
The map seems bigger if you can't always see all four borders.

That suddenly makes RW sounds a whole lot like your run-of-the-mill Civilization-type games...

Quote from: Spike on October 07, 2013, 10:54:09 AM
I could see the Crash Pod computers building up a quick map of the area as you come in (...)

That's how I see it as well.

Quote from: British on October 07, 2013, 10:56:14 AM
That suddenly makes RW sounds a whole lot like your run-of-the-mill Civilization-type games...

I don't know if it's a good or bad thing to you, so I'll assume the worse and continue on my idea.

Right now RimWorld with its total vision is very predictable and thus closer to pure management games (in the german spirit vein) than RPG or Strategy. So yeah, with Uncertainty Veil it would become closer as common strategy games. However, its goal is different of those of games like Starcraft, for example, that's why I changed its name.

After all, it's a choice: do Tynan want RimWorld to be close from Starcraft and Civilization than Farm Simulator and Cities in Motion. But I personally feel there's more potential stories coming out the first games than from the latter. Surprise and exploration are elements of successful stories. Careful planning and management, however enjoyable for other very good reasons, aren't as inspiring storytelling-wise.

If you prefer there's the middle ground of having the map need to be explored... in the beginning, but it stays "in-view" afterwards?

I like the idea. In Empire Earth you could launch a flare (at least I think it was EE) and it would reveal and area for a certain amount of time and then everything in that are would remain. Sometimes you would get there and the village that you revealed would've been wiped out by the AI, but you didn't know that because of the FoW. I like the idea that it helps with the story and creates tension. Maybe in the mid-late game you can build a radar dish or something that scans the area and reveals all, or something like that.

Maybe this could be a difficulty option, for example having a checkbox under the narrator to render him omniscient to stick to the uncertainty veil.

I do believe this is a good choice.

Maybe along the lines of the pod computers scanning, they just point out areas of interest and don't reveal that section per say, requiring more investigation.

As of right now, the way that the game plays is, see notification, look for crash/raiders/mad muffalo etc. This would provide a more tense story and therefore raises a suggestion.

Make fog of war part of the storyteller selection. If you have the easy version of the storyteller they don't add fog of war and vice versa. Or a storyteller customization, want easy and fog of war? Check! So on an so forth.

I'm all for the added possibilities of scouts, patrols and guard towers. Turrets providing limited sight compared to towers/motion only and not sure what it is (just a squirrel or sneaky raider?).

I see I got ninja'ed

Yes for having it as optional (if we have it our way, RW will be the game of the thousands options !), as it still bothers me that while the fog of war is fine for strategy games, this is not how I would label RW...

This actually used to be in the game back in June. I took it out after seeing people get really confused and blindsided by stuff from outside the fog of war.

Consider: Raiders approach, some muffalo go mad and attack them and there's a dramatic battle. With FoW over them, you never see any of it.

Actually, the FoW system is still in the game, but is only used for undiscovered underground features.

I may re-consider this some day, but at this point hiding information does not seem like the right direction to go for story generation. To me that's more a strategy game mechanic, and it only really works well in multiplayer strategy games where human players can fake each other out for strategic advantage.

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.

As RW is not a strategy game, for a real bunch of players, including myself, the exploration is a very fun part of the game. I may add that there is some sort of veil currently in the game (reference, courtesy of christonian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOpZC27K9g&feature=player_detailpage&list=UUjkPQ1mhkC0ZShIkvBcmfwQ#t=436).
Apparently areas not linked to the "main world" do not appear on the map at the beginning. Moreover there are some ore veins that are not shown at the beginning of the game.

this time I got ninja'ed

When I heard this, I too first thought of strategy games, and how RimWorld is not a strategy game.  But on second thought, this came to me.  RimWorld is supposed to be primarily focused on telling a story about your colony.  Uncertainty and lack of visibility adds to ambiance and tension to a story.  It may not be to everyone's taste, and it could make the game more difficult, but a Fog of War system would generate a more desperate atmosphere to your colony.

Since it can be turned on and off, perhaps some AI Storytellers use it, and some don't.  Phoebe Friendly doesn't want you to stress out, she wants to be your friend, so no FoW.  But Cassandra Classic knows that uncertainty is helpful to a rise in tension, so has it.

I also agree that the general lay of the land should be known to the player, anyway.  And any event that involves a crash pod should have an area marked on your map.  Its fairly hard to miss a streaking ball of fire heading towards a location near your base.  Especially if you have a com box, which could pick up distress signals or pirate raid chatter.

I think a FoW would be an interesting idea for higher up difficulties. Instead of the typical FoW depending on the entity movements, I think it would be nice to see it depend on a centralized structure that you would have to research and build. something along the lines of a beacon. You could set up the beacons all over the map along with their own solar panel to keep them running overnight.

This would make the planner think of where to place them and make him explore. It would also add the uncertainty of where the attack would come from and how strong the raiders were, but it would leave it up to the player as to how much of the map he would maintain.

Quote from: Blitzkriegsler on October 07, 2013, 05:54:33 PM
I think a FoW would be an interesting idea for higher up difficulties. Instead of the typical FoW depending on the entity movements, I think it would be nice to see it depend on a centralized structure that you would have to research and build. something along the lines of a beacon. You could set up the beacons all over the map along with their own solar panel to keep them running overnight.

This would make the planner think of where to place them and make him explore. It would also add the uncertainty of where the attack would come from and how strong the raiders were, but it would leave it up to the player as to how much of the map he would maintain.

This concept has merit (as long as it's in "higher up difficulties").

Quote from: Tynan on October 07, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
This actually used to be in the game back in June. I took it out after seeing people get really confused and blindsided by stuff from outside the fog of war.

....

Actually, the FoW system is still in the game, but is only used for undiscovered underground features.

Tynan, I agree with you that have a third person omnipresent perspective on everything is the best setup for storytelling. Like you mentioned, allowing the player to see everything that's going on lets them see events they might have otherwise missed. I'd love to see pirates get attacked by Muffalo in any of my games!

However, if this fog/veil system is already implemented, how much work would it be to make it a toggle at game start? Defaulted to off of course, but I think the option should be available for people who want to use it. It adds more variety to the gameplay for people to experiment with. Also if there are new music and sound effects on the way, appropriate sound cues combined with fog could make for a very suspenseful story indeed.

A way to achieve a similar effect would be to use the Dwarf Fortress method of making thieves/ambushes invisible until discovered, but if the FoW system is already developed it seems easier to just make that optional.

Hello all, been lurking since I backed this on kickstarter but I haven't posted anything yet.

I was thinking in regards to FOW. How about have a sensor style FOW.. let me explain.

So when you start the game, you would have a field of view that is generated by the escape pods etc that you landed in. These would be the sensor that start you off in the game and give you a good amount of vision, however not the entire map. Something large enough that you can see the things that don't happen in your immediate area and and that the player is required to notice to continue the story.

As the game continues you can install further senors that give greater vision, etc. Of course these would be dependent on power, this would allow for more events to take place that may require that the player not see the set up of the characters.

As mentioned before with this method given the pirate raid example, you could see them land and attack the cattle however once that was done maybe they destroy the sensor that covers that area, destroying the players vision forcing them to react to an attack that they cannot see.

Just a suggestion as I believe this would give more immersion into the game, not having a bordered map to look at.

FOW would also be removed by the colonists, if you wanted to you could consider sensor pings for "unknown" etc to make the player investigate the event rather than just task a colonist to collect said event etc.

This could be taken in numerous directions and many different methods however I think I got my point across, and I will stop there.

Anyway, Comments? Thoughts? Doubtful points?

Quote from: SpaceEatingTrex on October 07, 2013, 08:33:15 PM

Quote from: Tynan on October 07, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
This actually used to be in the game back in June. I took it out after seeing people get really confused and blindsided by stuff from outside the fog of war.

....

Actually, the FoW system is still in the game, but is only used for undiscovered underground features.

Tynan, I agree with you that have a three person omnipresent perspective on everything is the best setup for storytelling. Like you mentioned, allowing the player to see everything that's going on lets them see events they might have otherwise missed. I'd love to see pirates get attacked by Muffalo in any of my games!

However, if this fog/veil system is already implemented, how much work would it be to make it a toggle at game start? Defaulted to off of course, but I think the option should be available for people who want to use it. It adds more variety to the gameplay for people to experiment with. Also if there are new music and sound effects on the way, appropriate sound cues combined with fog could make for a very suspenseful story indeed.

A way to achieve a similar effect would be to use the Dwarf Fortress method of making thieves/ambushes invisible until discovered, but if the FoW system is already developed it seems easier to just make that optional.

It's a chunk of work to make it function beyond what it does now. The current fog looks like rock - not something you want to layer over the world. There's also no "three-state" fog of totally unknown/seen before/seen currently. Worse, there are performance implications to constantly tracking line of sight from a dozen colonists over the hundreds of squares that each of them can see.

Basically, I could do it, but it would take 4-6 days and I think those days are better put elsewhere. I could make a dozen new kinds of raider groups in that time. Or create a proper stockpile system (DF-style). Or a dozen new buildings. Tradeoffs, ya know?

Quote from: Jaybanger on October 08, 2013, 12:40:23 AM
Hello all, been lurking since I backed this on kickstarter but I haven't posted anything yet.

I was thinking in regards to FOW. How about have a sensor style FOW.. let me explain.

So when you start the game, you would have a field of view that is generated by the escape pods etc that you landed in. These would be the sensor that start you off in the game and give you a good amount of vision, however not the entire map. Something large enough that you can see the things that don't happen in your immediate area and and that the player is required to notice to continue the story.

As the game continues you can install further senors that give greater vision, etc. Of course these would be dependent on power, this would allow for more events to take place that may require that the player not see the set up of the characters.

As mentioned before with this method given the pirate raid example, you could see them land and attack the cattle however once that was done maybe they destroy the sensor that covers that area, destroying the players vision forcing them to react to an attack that they cannot see.

Just a suggestion as I believe this would give more immersion into the game, not having a bordered map to look at.

FOW would also be removed by the colonists, if you wanted to you could consider sensor pings for "unknown" etc to make the player investigate the event rather than just task a colonist to collect said event etc.

This could be taken in numerous directions and many different methods however I think I got my point across, and I will stop there.

Anyway, Comments? Thoughts? Doubtful points?

Most of it has already been said on the previous page of this very thread, so I'm not sure what to think... ???

Quote from: Tynan on October 08, 2013, 02:52:06 AMIt's a chunk of work to make it function beyond what it does now. The current fog looks like rock - not something you want to layer over the world. There's also no "three-state" fog of totally unknown/seen before/seen currently. Worse, there are performance implications to constantly tracking line of sight from a dozen colonists over the hundreds of squares that each of them can see.

Basically, I could do it, but it would take 4-6 days and I think those days are better put elsewhere. I could make a dozen new kinds of raider groups in that time. Or create a proper stockpile system (DF-style). Or a dozen new buildings. Tradeoffs, ya know?

Thanks for the explanation, Tynan! More core content is certainly more important than extra features like FoW. And if the FoW was implemented, it should have the extra states and other high-quality elements. Although certainly not necessary now, if other players think the idea has merit it might be something to keep in mind for a future module.

It certainly has some merits as some people, including me, may find some fun in it. But if that means having less stuff or lower quality on it, I think there is no place to argue for it, as it may be quite a heavy feature to add as highlighted by Ty, and to balance.

I propose we lock this thread until Alpha comes out after Kickstarter and we can all come back with a fresh perspective? Then we'll also be able to see how far along the game's come from Pre-Alpha and decide whether the extra work aspect of adding UV is worth it.

Seconded?

Why not. How about opening a post-pre-alpha topic in order to list what should (or shouldn't) be dicussed at an ulterior time and keep track of the refused/postponed issues? It is not the first topic concerned an probably it won't be the last.

I feel like (again) the DF way would be good for this.  You can see everything on the map, however you won't be notified until a dwarf (or person in this case) discovers them. It works surprisingly well, and most of the time I'm too busy working on the fortress to notice those goblins until they come charging in.  However, at the current state of Rimworld it seems like there is generally no dedicated military and you could be killed because of an ambush (then again, Auto turrets could prevent this).  So perhaps use the sensors or turrets to detect whenever something hostile enters the range of it.

Quote from: Zeiph on October 07, 2013, 12:49:48 PM
Maybe this could be a difficulty option, for example having a checkbox under the narrator to render him omniscient to stick to the uncertainty veil.

This. My philosophy on games is that IF a feature can be toggled with minimal balancing cost, it should be. The developer then just sets the default as he sees fit, but allows the toggle for players who want a different experience.

Since this has already been coded, why not make it toggleable?

Quote from: DNK on October 08, 2013, 11:04:25 PM
Since this has already been coded, why not make it toggleable?

I like options.  I like things that you won't like, and you'll like things that I don't like.  If those things are in the game, and we can toggle the ones we don't like off, that makes us both happy.

Another possibility (feel bad for volunteering more work for Ty  :P ) would be to tie it into the Storyteller system.  You have a view because part of the crash pod safety system left a satellite up in orbit.  But what if your equipment ground-side linking you to the satellite malfunctions?  Or the smarter pirates jam you before they attack?

Quote from: DNK on October 08, 2013, 11:04:25 PM
My philosophy on games is that IF a feature can be toggled with minimal balancing cost, it should be. The developer then just sets the default as he sees fit, but allows the toggle for players who want a different experience.

Since this has already been coded, why not make it toggleable?

(http://i.imgur.com/9NN3eaF.jpg)

I'd be with you on that for most of the way except for the common misconception people have picked up that it is

Quote"already coded in the game"

it really isn't and would take a lot of work to bring about. Tynan's already expressed that in a much earlier version FoW did exist but he took it out and it didn't work how people imagine it did as a standard 3-shift FoW but just a blackness across the whole map that made things difficult and reduced the story aspect of the game.

The debate isn't whether to include it anymore, I think everyone agrees that it should be included with a toggle-able setting; since I'd likely want it off for some playthroughs, but whether Tynan should -and is willing to- spend a good deal of time coding it in now when he could be spending the time more productively by adding content that everyone will be using. (Roughly paraphrased his last comment on this thread at the end there)

I'd like to consider this from the opposite point of view...

From what I've seen in one of Blitzkriegslers videos, it seems that the raiders AI has perfect knowledge of the whole map, too. Some raiders took a walk through a long cave so they could attack him from the less perfectly defended back. Generally, this is fine. But I think it would be better if the raiders would need to send scouts to know about a weakness in defense. Those scouts could, in turn, be arrested/killed so they wouldn't be able to return with the information.

This isn't terrible. They could have scanned the area before showing up. Still explainable. But I suppose it would create more story opportunities if complexity is added to this component.

Beside that, I'd also be a friend of sensor beacons that could be deployed over the map. But I don't think that they should require a whole solar array to function. Instead, they should be independent of energy, i.e. they should have their own small solar panel with internal batteries. This would mean that they'd probably fail during eclipse if not connected to optional wires but they'd still be able to perform duty during a normal night.

Quote from: huxi on October 20, 2013, 07:59:48 PM
From what I've seen in one of Blitzkriegslers videos, it seems that the raiders AI has perfect knowledge of the whole map, too. Some raiders took a walk through a long cave so they could attack him from the less perfectly defended back.

I haven't seen that specific video, but I'd wager it was more about going through the shortest path than the safest one...

I think it was around 10-12 of the randy random playthrough I did. I am fairly sure it was the shortest path as well.

i want fogz of warz

I think there should be an option for having fog or not, as some people seem to think it's essential and others never want to see it. Having a satellite or have someone stay in the remains of the destroyed ship in orbit, you'd have to keep sending food and oxygen to keep them alive but get bonuses like revealed f.o.w, research bonuses, comms. console, more frequent traders and cheaper trade goods, having to send stuff to the surface or back could cost big energy. Raiders that can scramble comms. and teleporters and have full map view from their ship, I would also want natives/raiders without this ability to balance this out. I personally would like to see a blacked out fog of war for areas you haven't seen yet, greyed out for areas you're currently not looking at and full colour for areas you can see, or if you include cctv, areas that the cameras can see.

Quote from: Necronomocoins on January 31, 2014, 01:32:26 AM
I think there should be an option for having fog or not, as some people seem to think it's essential and others never want to see it. Having a satellite or have someone stay in the remains of the destroyed ship in orbit, you'd have to keep sending food and oxygen to keep them alive but get bonuses like revealed f.o.w, research bonuses, comms. console, more frequent traders and cheaper trade goods, having to send stuff to the surface or back could cost big energy. Raiders that can scramble comms. and teleporters and have full map view from their ship, I would also want natives/raiders without this ability to balance this out. I personally would like to see a blacked out fog of war for areas you haven't seen yet, greyed out for areas you're currently not looking at and full colour for areas you can see, or if you include cctv, areas that the cameras can see.

This idea is awesome.

Just bumping this fog of war thread, just because I'm new here and would love this to get implemented. Automatically knowing where everything is after being forced into a crashed landing on an unknown planet/region makes no sense. Exploring would be a great thing story and choice-wise, to discover what you have around you, where to look first etc. it'd be exciting to come across a geyser etc. By all means for those who don't like it, give an option at start of game or researched technology that would remove it, like a satellite as suggested above.

On paper, I love the idea of FoW, but not the classical FoW. We're in a sci-fi-setting, and the least what should be in a crash pod helping the survivors are some kind of scanners. Set them up to roughly know the directions of where to find minerals etc. And in case of dropping raiders or other survivors, you see roughly where they land, so you're not 100% clueless if the game mark the area of interest. Then it's up to you to order a colonist to scout.
Maybe the map can be randomly expanded or generated while exploring?

But I agree, it's a concept that shouldn't be high priority right now.

Fog of War is an interesting idea, and one I like very much in many types of games, but I personally don't think I'd want to see it in Rimworld as it currently exists, for two reasons:

1) If FoW exists, it becomes vital to be able to establish proper lookout posts and such to spot attacking groups in time to react to them.  Lookout posts are invariably positioned in high altitude locations in order to provide a range advantage in spotting approaching enemies before they are so close that they can take out the lookout post.  That is the advantage of the defense, after all ... to be able to pick the locations where you position your defense. But since everything in Rimworld is at the same height, that mechanic is not available.  Just having lookouts sitting at ground level where they can't spot attackers until the attackers can also spot the lookouts doesn't sound very effective, and not too healthy for the lookouts either.  Not to mention the large penalty of having to assign any of our limited number of colonists to permanent lookout duty.  Now, if we avoid that by deciding that the "lookouts" aren't colonists but some sort of electronic surveillance equipment, then why not just save a step, avoid adding needless complexity and say that such electronic gear has been deployed (unseen on the map) around the colony to allow the view of the area that we already have now?

2) If our colonies can't see the attackers until they are that close, then it would only be fair that the reverse is also true, otherwise it would get frustrating to essentially be constantly fighting as a blind man against foes with perfect vision.  (I very much dislike games that have those sorts of baked-in penalties for the player.)  But attackers should automatically have knowledge of the location of your base, because otherwise are we to assume they were just wandering around in the wilderness looking for someone to attack?  Seems much more sensible that they've already fixed the colony's location when they enter the map - maybe through spotting it from orbit (i.e., pirates), or by triangulating transmissions from the comms console, or even just through rumors from other visitors of some colony that has been spending or making lots of silver with passing trade ships.  Anyway, my point is that they know where we are, and as such, to keep the game playable and enjoyable, I think we also need to know where they are coming from in time for us to be able to deal with them when they show up by surprise (something which is often hard enough already when you've got colonists in bed, or your best shooter halfway across the map on a hunting trip, and so on).

+1 for FoW

Would give you things like colonists on sentry/patrol mode, watchtowers, rudamentry motion detectors, sensor towers for proper vision, satellite launch for full time vision.

-1 for FoW.

I like being able to see everything going on, watching stuff like tribal visitors fighting the crazed boomrat and all that.

Also as Mystic says you either waste a colonist on lookout or building static equipment which is just an extra pointless step.

Quote from: Tynan on October 08, 2013, 02:52:06 AM
It's a chunk of work to make it function beyond what it does now. The current fog looks like rock - not something you want to layer over the world. There's also no "three-state" fog of totally unknown/seen before/seen currently. Worse, there are performance implications to constantly tracking line of sight from a dozen colonists over the hundreds of squares that each of them can see.

Basically, I could do it, but it would take 4-6 days and I think those days are better put elsewhere. I could make a dozen new kinds of raider groups in that time. Or create a proper stockpile system (DF-style). Or a dozen new buildings. Tradeoffs, ya know?

Given Tynan's estimate that it would take 4-6 days of coding to implement, I sincerely hope that fog of war is included in a (near) future version. Especially before new raiders, etc, given the current modding community has proven very competent at expanding the game within existing systems. As a toggle would be totally understandable, given it is a big plus or minus for varying players. Personally, this feature would greatly improve my immersion/narrative experience within the game.

There are plenty of posts within this thread on how this might be implemented in a way that is manageable. I signed up for this forum specifically to make a first post on FoW for A9 (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=8372.msg93769#msg93769 (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=8372.msg93769#msg93769)). In addition to those, I have a few new/refined thoughts on how it may be balanced in a "simple" vanilla version:
* Automated viewing posts - as mentioned earlier in this thread, perhaps with a included solar panel and battery. Thus the player needs to research and then build (at a high cost) those posts where it is worthwhile.
* Scouting drones - a one-function drone that simply moves around to "clean" up the fog of war, prioritizing areas that haven't been seen in the longer time. Costly enough to research and build that having more that a couple is very unlikely, reducing CPU usage spamming...
* Scouting "ammo" for mortars - easier to obtain, a simple one-off mortar ammo type that you shoot around the map and it then reveals the area for x minutes. The probe is very costly to buy from traders, but can be retrieved later by a hauler to fire again. The idea is to incentivize the player to shoot out probes when audio indicates an attack incoming from an unknown direction.
* Raider priorities - smarter raiders prioritize killing the above tech, if seen, forcing higher scouting costs on the player if they overly spam the map with probes etc.

Of course there are many other possible ways to balance a vanilla version, hopefully some of which are relatively "lightweight" once the three-stage FOW system is in place. I personally like the scouting drone the most, as it fits within scifi and I think would reduce the possible tedium of rebuilding posts all over the map. In any case, I expect once a system is in place it would spark a mod frenzy in that space...

I didn't see many other posts by Tynan on this topic - has he touched on it since 2013?

Quote from: Tynan on October 07, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
Consider: Raiders approach, some muffalo go mad and attack them and there's a dramatic battle. With FoW over them, you never see any of it.

You might not see the battle itself unfold, but it would still add to the story. Think a raiding party arrives, but after a day or two there is still no sight of them. A scout is sent to determine their whereabouts and stumbles across a field of dead muffalo and raider corpses. In fact I think the uncertainty of not knowing *exactly* what and how it happened, leaving the player to figure it out would add to the story, not detract from it.

Edit: Wow, somehow I completely missed the fact this thread was from 2013 and that it has two more pages. I really need to get more sleep.

Agree with above, it should be a toggle and it would actually add to the story to me if I didn't know what happened to the raider party, but was given evidence as to how it happened.

Considering the amount of invasions you get in a regular play, i wouldn't miss if i didn't see any of them until some sort of map revealer tech was built.

As per the muffalo-raider story: Sure, that's one story, but with FoW + revealer you have at least 2 stories (like NIA wrote, about scouting an after battle scenario AND the same muffalo-raider story). Plus it makes way more sense that a survivor game has the uncertainty that FoW brings.

It also strikes me as odd that a game with ever increasing complexities such as rimworld, specially considering mods, has (few, some, lots?) its players confused with FoW. Sure, with the amount of raiders we have, and the absurd amount of raiders we had in previous alphas, that doesn't surprise me, but that seems like a case to balance the game around having fog of war, not having huge amounts of enemies.

Quote from: Hypolite on October 07, 2013, 11:05:11 AM

Quote from: British on October 07, 2013, 10:56:14 AM
That suddenly makes RW sounds a whole lot like your run-of-the-mill Civilization-type games...

I don't know if it's a good or bad thing to you, so I'll assume the worse and continue on my idea.

Right now RimWorld with its total vision is very predictable and thus closer to pure management games (in the german spirit vein) than RPG or Strategy. So yeah, with Uncertainty Veil it would become closer as common strategy games. However, its goal is different of those of games like Starcraft, for example, that's why I changed its name.

After all, it's a choice: do Tynan want RimWorld to be close from Starcraft and Civilization than Farm Simulator and Cities in Motion. But I personally feel there's more potential stories coming out the first games than from the latter. Surprise and exploration are elements of successful stories. Careful planning and management, however enjoyable for other very good reasons, aren't as inspiring storytelling-wise.

True, it seems far too easy now to fight raiders because you always know where they are and where they will go and also where all your resources are, etc

I think that it should be an optional add-on on world generation because Rimworld seems far too easy without it.

Furthermore it should be like the AOE series where you don't know where anything us unless you scout and see the mountains and stuff and that you can only see units/animals/mechanoids/etc if it's in your person's "field of view".

I am still undecided what Fog of War could give to Rimworld.

I started a comparison text to Dwarf Fortress ( which I accidently deleted )
which made me tip in the No-Fog Group.

I try to reconstruct the arguments from memory, so stay with me.

As for now Dwarf Fortress and Rimworld use the same Sight-Blocking concept.
The Outside Map is visible from the beginning, everything that is undergroud is blocked from sight
and gets revealed by digging it out and then stays revealed.

Uncertanty is created through the size of the map. Everything is visible but you can't look at everything
at once. This is why Games that use Fog of War have multiple options to keep at least on top of which
areas you can and can't see. Minimaps, Radar, Jump to Locations ..

True Line of Sight is a performance killer with the sheer number of sight obscuring obstacles than can be randomly placed on the map
and path finding. You don't want 60 or more units doing this at the same time.
This should stay with turn-based strategy or roguelikes.

Then the Sight Radius with fow is anoying as heck, I would not want to watch colored circles move through grey sludge all the time.
And you would have to mark the unseen areas in some ways ..

As for the effort Tynan would have to put into a really working FoW System, I think that would be at least to alphas .. or with the
actual release schedule two to three month.

I base this on his guesstimate that he would need about 6 days to install a 3 Level FoG of war. ( Blocked / Revealed / Seeing )
Another week to balance sight radius with weapons range .. what will happen to mortars and sniper rifles ?
Implementing RTS Features to keep in touch with areas that are not visible for your pawns ... ( Radar, Minimap, Oversight map ..
whatever comes to mind ) Another week or to ..


All in all, I don't think for a feature that could be nice .. the effort is not worth it.

Still hiding some stuff from the player would be nice.

Single Invisible Enemies that Scout the base, entries, weaknesses and so on, until in ( invisble ) sight radius of pawns
Not showing what was in drop pods, so that at least somebody has to go look .. is it something good ? devilstrand ? raiders ?
wounded ?
If Raids and Sieges should be hidden, I don't know .. I am not overly fond of sudden localized mortar showers

2 state fog of war. Explored/Unexplored

No line of site fog of war, to reduce performance issues.

Unexplored fog of war is not opaque, some transparencies (either brightness or fuzziness). You can still see where things outside your camp take place, just not exactly the events that unfold.

Day 15- We could hear distant battles taking place to the north of our camp. We know we were just scanned out by some pirate signals, so that might have been them. Maybe they had a mutiny, we might have to explore the area to find out what happened, then again it might be too dangerous not knowing if it was all a ruse to get us to come out. On another note, the animals have been acting strange. Some of the muffalos have been showing aggression for no real reason. We've stepped up our defenses to keep them at bay, not to mention if those raiders are still around.

Day 18- The raiders never came to our doorstep and now we decided to make a scout party to try and find out what happened. Pirates are enough to be worried about, but if they were killed than we need to know what did it. There could be survivors too, and maybe if we save them, they might be inclined to join us, it never hurts to have another helping hand.

Day 21- Our scout party moved north to try and get some more information to the whereabouts of the pirates, we found a body, along with a sniper rifle. I guess they must have left in a hurry to leave that behind. He looked like he might have been trampled, most likely from a muffalo.

Day 22- Andy is dead. On our way back from investigating what happened to the pirates, a muffalo caught us by surprise. Andy was the first to get hit. We put the mad beast down, and tried to bring Andy back to camp, but he lost too much blood and died. Rest in peace my friend.

Personally, I would like to see fog of war as a night time feature, thus distinguishing night from day by more than just "my pawns sleep and plants don't grow."  Being able to see every revealed area as it is now during the day would make a lot of tasks reasonable (looting goo, etc...) while having the FoW occur at night would provide a certain amount of tension.  An alternate, though related, option would be to have FoW be controlled by lighting.  Outdoors during the day would be as normal, eclipses and night would be FoW, and building lights would permanently reveal areas, at least until taken out by tribal raiders.  It could be made quite efficient as pawns LoS would not need to be checked, and lighting is already calculated.  Fire would have additional uses.  Overall I think it would be a win.

QuotePersonally, I would like to see fog of war as a night time feature, thus distinguishing night from day by more than just "my pawns sleep and plants don't grow."  Being able to see every revealed area as it is now during the day would make a lot of tasks reasonable (looting goo, etc...) while having the FoW occur at night would provide a certain amount of tension.  An alternate, though related, option would be to have FoW be controlled by lighting.  Outdoors during the day would be as normal, eclipses and night would be FoW, and building lights would permanently reveal areas, at least until taken out by tribal raiders.  It could be made quite efficient as pawns LoS would not need to be checked, and lighting is already calculated.  Fire would have additional uses.  Overall I think it would be a win.

This is a nice approach.

I think Tynan hit the nail on the head early on.

It's great for a strategy game, but he explicitly doesn't want Rimworld to be a quirky strategy game. He'd prefer strategic elements in a story/simulator type game.

I think that the mix we have at present is near ideal. Open parts of the map are known, but internal structures are obscured. This lends toward exploration as opposed to constant fretting over security and intel.

No fog of war is a missed opportunity regarding several (potential) survival aspects of the game. The concept of fog of war goes way beyond traditional rts games, which is the main criticism of FoW in these forums. You can even get to a point, due to research, to reveal the entire map and play as current.

"Why, if in the end it will work the same"  "because early game would be more tense evincing the survival aspect of 'we just got shipwrecked in a hostile planet', and getting over that stage brings more of a sense of achievement. Also, several events could influence fog of war offering tactical challenges and options."

Anyway, it all boils down to personal preference.  If it ever gets (re)implemented or not, it will be due to whichever side voices higher.

Quote from: SpaceEatingTrex on October 08, 2013, 04:15:29 PM
Thanks for the explanation, Tynan! More core content is certainly more important than extra features like FoW. And if the FoW was implemented, it should have the extra states and other high-quality elements. Although certainly not necessary now, if other players think the idea has merit it might be something to keep in mind for a future module.

I'd strongly disagree.

I'd say that uncertainty/fog-of-war is a core concept of the game.  As it stands now, part of the appeal of mountain bases (not to say they are bad) is how easy they are to set up because yo ucan easily scan the map for the largest mountain and simply go there to build.  With a Fog of War feature, you incentivize building right where you are, or nearly at your landing site, simply for survival's sake before you put yourself in a position to move to that more defensible mountain hole.

Similarly, while warnings that raiders are coming are great, the lack of a fog of war means that you always know exactly where they are coming from the moment they pop out...whereas with it, you actually have to put guards everywhere when an alert comes and hope they come at that perfect speed, and from the right direction, so that your people aren't sleepy by the time the raiders attack, but also aren't so fast that you are able to put your people exactly where you want.  A little uncertainty is never a bad thing, especially in a game like this.

Quote from: geredis on March 20, 2015, 07:03:09 PM
......whereas with it, you actually have to put guards everywhere when an alert comes and hope they come at that perfect speed, and from the right direction, so that your people aren't sleepy by the time the raiders attack, but also aren't so fast that you are able to put your people exactly where you want.  A little uncertainty is never a bad thing, especially in a game like this.

To put guards everywhere means you have a surplus of colonists, or your colony goes on time-out until the raiders eventually show up. Not sure if this add tension, or just waiting and wasting time.

I could see a possible angle for FoW, actually using fog as the catalyst..so weather related. This might work to satisfy the need for tension.

Or the really crazy idea of making it a toggle in Options to turn on/off FoW.

Everywhere is somewhat exaggerated, but I meant everywhere as in key points all over your entire colonial perimeter, not...everywhere as in scattered sufficiently to un-fog the entire map at all times.

Quote from: geredis on March 20, 2015, 07:35:11 PM
Everywhere is somewhat exaggerated, but I meant everywhere as in key points all over your entire colonial perimeter, not...everywhere as in scattered sufficiently to un-fog the entire map at all times.

I understand what you mean, but still having to spread-out your colonists for roughly 2-3 real-time minutes is waiting is still tedious.

And to that aspect of wasted time...I don't see that necessarily.  Sure, it may seem like wasted time but I see it as tension and also creates an interesting choice for the player.

Either you can pull the colonists off of work the moment you get the alarm (since even if you cant'see them in the fog of war they're probably making enough noise/yous aw the streaking balls of fire in the sky/whatever) and pull your colony's productivity to zero while you either man your positions so you can reform the defenses in the right place...and in the process perhaps waste days on end...  Or you can take a more proactive approach and keep some of the colony working while you send a handful of guys out to take the fight to them...and in doing so risk the colony being defenseless if you chose the wrong place to search, all while ensuring that you deal with the problem in such a way that your production is not entirely reduced.

I suppose after 2 years of a certain fitting style of playing the game, changing seems foreign, if not unnecessary. Only though because the game is not set up that way, not because I strictly am against the idea of FoW.

FoW for me at best is a situational thing, ie weather or night time.

If though a really clever way comes up, I'm not 100% opposed to the idea either.

I think introducing a limited "Fog of War" concept within the current confines of the game could be beneficial specifically:

1.  Entire map always revealed during crash landing
2.  Location of all resources (packaged survival meals, metals, etc.) not revealed until your colonists find them OR you build a
Comms console which serves double-duty as a "big brother survey and monitoring station"
3.  Nighttime FOW abstracted by severely limiting/eliminating the time before any raiders attack (at night)

+1, but only if fog will can be switched off/on.

I don't really see where all of this massive appeal and sudden challenge is supposed to come from.

Fog won't stop mountain base digging. It won't even add tension to raids, it will just grant a huge incentive/reward for having complex turret arrays and killboxes to avoid getting blindsided, which is exactly why Tynan removed it to begin with.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 21, 2015, 10:31:32 PM
I don't really see where all of this massive appeal and sudden challenge is supposed to come from.

Fog won't stop mountain base digging. It won't even add tension to raids, it will just grant a huge incentive/reward for having complex turret arrays and killboxes to avoid getting blindsided, which is exactly why Tynan removed it to begin with.

It's about tension and story telling, not challenge. Your concerns about killboxes and turrets could be addressed with a rebalance of build costs/needs, rather than just ignoring an entire gameplay concept.

My main gripe is that Tynan has guesstimated it would take about a week to implement a decent system. I wish he would - I imagine a few modders would leap on it for balance, new tech, etc etc, if just the framework were there.

If by 'rebalancing' you mean spite solutions against what you're encouraging with this, then no, that isn't a great idea at all. You're basically falling into some sort of tunnelvision bias for a concept that you really like and are just casually upturning everything inconvenient to support it.

QuoteIf by 'rebalancing' you mean spite solutions against what you're encouraging with this, then no, that isn't a great idea at all. You're basically falling into some sort of tunnelvision bias for a concept that you really like and are just casually upturning everything inconvenient to support it.

I'm not spiteful whatsoever; above I acknowledged that an alternative (much lighter) FoW implementation was a fine idea. I'm not even asking for him to make it the core of vanilla gameplay, just to put the system in place (in <6 days) for the modding community to run with. For example, BTSGs is a great mod, but probably not everyone's cup of tea, and I know it doesn't make sense to force it on everyone by absorbing it into vanilla. That said, a modder was able to make it because the core systems were in place and available to exploit.

I've also made clear elsewhere that I think the game is plenty fun as is - I think Tynan could publish A10 as 1.0 if he wanted to be done with all of our gripes; and no one would have much to reasonably complain about. The game is already great value for money.

I have a few changes I'd like to see still, and will voice my opinion on them in the few threads dedicated to them. If my tone strays too far from acceptable I expect I'll be warned/dinged by a forum-mod - which is fine. Any view of this game that differs from your own isn't necessarily spiteful or biased - which is of course true for all of us.

If Tynan wants to test out a new fog of war system, then he has a group of testers to give feedback on it.

I think this is something which he would probably have to consider a while before adding it (back) into the mix. Not saying that it is a good or bad feature but that it would have quite an impact on gameplay. Which is a reason to try it out on testers first.

Also, it's not really the tone so much as the bickering that gives me cause for concern, just so you know. I know you guys are passionate about the game but dial it back a bit, please. :)

'Spite solutions' aren't a personal criticism or judgment. It's a criticism of what are very shallow solutions whose only purpose is to punish a certain type of gameplay, often arbitrarily.

These are very bad solutions as (by virtue of being shallow) they fail to address the underlying problem and will only lead to an innovative exploit to get around them.

That being said, if Tynan wants to add another feature for modders to play with, I'm all for it. There are some nice rts mods that would do great with it.

Myself I am not interested by fog of war outside of revealing underground zone.
Such game mechanic is suited for strategy combat game, something Rimworld isn't. You start with 3 colonist, not 3 combats groups of commandos.

Not all features are good for any game. Imagine what it would be if you had to cook your food in a typical fast FPS shooter.
And it isn't less realist in anyway, I consider my omnivision as Rimworld abstracting my colonist checking around without me micro-managing them..

Of course, if Tynan said he wanted to I believe he would know his stuff, but given the reason he took back the last one I don't him do so.

Quote from: Tynan on October 07, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
I may re-consider this some day, but at this point hiding information does not seem like the right direction to go for story generation. To me that's more a strategy game mechanic, and it only really works well in multiplayer strategy games where human players can fake each other out for strategic advantage.

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.

Rimworld certainly can work as a satellite game it is now. But lack of fog of war also limits it.
Rimworld is missing something that I crave - MYSTERY.

I'm seriously going to fetch and play the early alpha that had fog of war, if possible. To compare.

The satellite view always gives you perfect information. You know exactly where raiders are landing and heading. You can see what dropped from crashed cargo and where. There are no surprise encounters with strange animals, or people. You don't accidentally find any resource or item. There's not a moment of doubt what's happening or what might happen, other than the storyteller throwing dice. I would enjoy the game more if non-critical events like crashing cargo were NOT announced, and hidden.

There's no drama sending a rescue party. Instead of sending a search party and biting your nails, you send the closest pawn. Imagine a colonist with damaged Consciousness having difficulty reporting his position. You could represent this by making him periodically disappear from the world map. He would still be there, and be moving somewhere, but wouldn't report. He wouldn't generate a field of view. Maybe he became sick, or his electronics were broken (potential for a Storyteller event). You would need to send someone and rescue him. A race against time.

Rampaging squirrels could be much more terrifying with FoW ! You could be scared as hell to let your people leave the colony until the threat is gone.

That's another story Rimworld, by design, can't tell - horror stories. All the classic horrors rely on the unknown. Darkness is a staple in horror movies and books. Darkness has stuff you can't see. We fear the unknown.

You are not a fan of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, are you ? :-(

Pawns create footprints on snow and sand. You could make them disappear slower. With Fog of War, they would tell a story. Currently they're just eyecandy. Multiple footprints - probably the pirates that landed a while ago. Single footprints - your colonist ? Or a ship crash survivor ? Speaking of these, instead of having them lie there injured every single time, you could have them wander around, exhausted, and hungry. Current lack of FoW makes this infeasible. Rimworld has no detective stories.

You could have not just weather affecting vision distance, but colonist traits, health and age. You could have a variety of scouting mechanics, including binoculars, automatic sensors, radars, cat-mounted webcams http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/ . And finally, research some high tech radar or satellite that shows you everything.

In roguelikes, a great deal of tension comes from not knowing what's around the corner. Any tool or spell that lets you reveal areas from afar is highly valuable. Rimworld can't have that tension.

At the moment, the only surprises in the game not generated by the storyteller can be underground. Only underground can contain undiscovered areas, hidden mineral veins, ancient cryosleep caskets you don't instantly notice. DF has much more mystery, because you're constantly digging and finding new stuff. What's on the next level ? Lava ? River ? Kobolds ? Silver ? Hell ? Without a fog of war, your choice is either no mystery, or having all the hidden objects underground.

QuoteConsider: Raiders approach, some muffalo go mad and attack them and there's a dramatic battle. With FoW over them, you never see any of it.

Frankly, I'm surprised you make this point when the game has such excellent sound design and distant gunfire! You would hear the battle. Must everything be literal ? Do you want no place for imagination to hide ? If you really wanted, you could send a scout - with binoculars, so you're not really in danger yourself. Or use a satellite scan like in Starcraft 2 - that would drain your batteries quite a lot, and grant vision in a small area for short duration. And if you don't, corpses, bloodstains and dropped weapons also tell a story.  As for faction vs faction warfare, you could have a mechanic where friendly factions share their vision with you (like is common in RTS games). That way you wouldn't miss too many battles.

QuoteThis actually used to be in the game back in June. I took it out after seeing people get really confused and blindsided by stuff from outside the fog of war.

I don't know how early alphas handled this, but I would still announce important events like crashing survivor or landing pirates. You could have a long-range radar that picks up such events and marks the location on (low-resolution) minimap. Only the initial landing spot, so if pirates are going somewhere, you would need to send a spy. I don't imagine this would be a big deal if vision range is at least as much as Survival Rifle range. A flashing notification as soon as something hostile comes into view of a colonist, and it's solved. For most types of hostile events I can come up with mechanics that give you just enough information to prevent unfair ambushes, but strike fear into players.

Seems a bit.. exaggerated. There's no horror in fog of war, same as there's no horror in exploring your area in an RTS game. If there's something big, you walk it back into your killbox, rinse and repeat.

There is already a drama in retrieving an injured colonist in a fight. It's a race against time. No fog is going to trump that.

As said time and before, FoW is great if we're leaning toward rts, but not otherwise.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 21, 2015, 10:31:32 PM
I don't really see where all of this massive appeal and sudden challenge is supposed to come from.

Finally something we agree on.

Quote
Fog won't stop mountain base digging. It won't even add tension to raids, it will just grant a huge incentive/reward for having complex turret arrays and killboxes to avoid getting blindsided, which is exactly why Tynan removed it to begin with.

The last several alphas prove the causes for killboxes run much deeper. Fog is gone, but killboxes remained. There are still no alternatives to turrets. Mortars are not even good enough to weaken a raid that waits before it attacks. So many colonists are either incapable of fighting, or skilled in melee only. It's almost as if Tynan wanted players to rely on turrets.

Killboxes are definitely a complex issue. My claim is that the Fog contributes to and further complicates that issue by further promoting and rewarding that behavior.

That's a consequence of tipping the gameplay toward rts.

So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.  Kill boxes are a result of raider AI that is incapable of handling a kill box. A darkness based fog of war is not going to encourage kill boxes any more than they already are.  FoW would open up the opportunity for new types of interactions between existing game mechanics which can lead to emergent behaviour and hence more interesting stories.  There is obviously a place in this world for both perfect and imperfect knowledge games, but for creating stories imperfect knowledge is far superior.

As for tipping towards RTS, I don't see why you think this.  Fog of War is a staple in TBS, RPGs, FPS, and card games.  It is not unique to RTS and there are certainly plenty examples of RTSs that do not have fog of war. 

Quote from: Darth Fool on March 22, 2015, 08:18:35 PM
So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.  Kill boxes are a result of raider AI that is incapable of handling a kill box. A darkness based fog of war is not going to encourage kill boxes any more than they already are.  FoW would open up the opportunity for new types of interactions between existing game mechanics which can lead to emergent behaviour and hence more interesting stories.  There is obviously a place in this world for both perfect and imperfect knowledge games, but for creating stories imperfect knowledge is far superior.

As for tipping towards RTS, I don't see why you think this.  Fog of War is a staple in TBS, RPGs, FPS, and card games.  It is not unique to RTS and there are certainly plenty examples of RTSs that do not have fog of war. 

Yep, and the fact that Fog of War has its origin as a military term and not from a RTs game, tells a lot about its "uniqueness" to RTS. It goes well beyond its iconic graphical implementation of a covering black or dark veil as it came to be known in strategic and tactical games.

Adding fog of war would influence rimworld into changing it's genre as much as revealing all enemies and items would in a FPS game, changing into something else other than a FPS. It wouldn't.

Let's not forget that you can apply uncertainty veil in varying degrees. You can have the strict, binary way used in most RTS games. Or something more like in Total Annihilation, where you can still detect things with a radar and see them on minimap. In Rimworld terms, this could mean that a radar would let you see where enemies are (represented as red dots), but you wouldn't know how they're equipped, their names, stats. Until you get close enough to see them. Such radars or sensors could be quite cheap, but run on electric energy so they would only cover the area near your base. Unless you make a point of building a solar generator and a sensor somewhere far away just for early warning.

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 23, 2015, 02:10:57 AM
Let's not forget that you can apply uncertainty veil in varying degrees. You can have the strict, binary way used in most RTS games. Or something more like in Total Annihilation, where you can still detect things with a radar and see them on minimap. In Rimworld terms, this could mean that a radar would let you see where enemies are (represented as red dots), but you wouldn't know how they're equipped, their names, stats. Until you get close enough to see them. Such radars or sensors could be quite cheap, but run on electric energy so they would only cover the area near your base. Unless you make a point of building a solar generator and a sensor somewhere far away just for early warning.

Yep, there's a ton of creative ways to deal with fow. Red blips are pretty cool, kinda like aliens, and they could be just a herd of animals.

I think early game should be scarier, and fog is a good way to deliver that. Unless people want to trivialize the theme of the game, then it doesn't ever matter if they are shipwrecked or just a small band of colonists pioneers.

The kind of tactical choices the player has to make, such as "do i research better sensors or better ways to farm?" are the stuff that makes the game richer IMHO, and fow promotes that.

Speaking of red blips, the free MMO-bullet hell game Realm of the Mad God achieves something remarkable. For most part you can recognize monsters on minimap by their movement signature. Many monsters move in very particular ways.

I would like to recall a bit from Tynan : With a fog of war you cannot see elements of storytelling like a raider attacked by fauna or becoming broken.

I also support that FoW would not change the Killbox problem in any way. Killbox work precisely because AI are extremely predictable. And I'll go on saying that if we had FoW, not being able to count on that anymore could make raider/tribal quite frustrating (and again, I don't want to need guard outside of those clear event)

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 23, 2015, 01:20:17 PM
I would like to recall a bit from Tynan : With a fog of war you cannot see elements of storytelling like a raider attacked by fauna or becoming broken.

TBH that's only half true, with FoW you're only delaying that until you develop ways to counter it. Also, right now, there's nothing much in events and behavior that won't lose its novelty after a few invasions.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 23, 2015, 01:20:17 PM
I also support that FoW would not change the Killbox problem in any way. Killbox work precisely because AI are extremely predictable. And I'll go on saying that if we had FoW, not being able to count on that anymore could make raider/tribal quite frustrating (and again, I don't want to need guard outside of those clear event)

Losing sense of control is a poignant consequence of FoW indeed (and a feature), but lets remember that should it be implemented everything else would rebalance around it.

For example, it could be a longer time before the raiding begins, you could even postpone it should you continue to remain hidden (or kill scouts), or there could be something like constant threats besides only invasions.

Although its quite fun to build and amass wealth, i think the overall theme of the game is to be under pressure until you manage to escape, and the challenges of managing your survivors until then. I mean, its not an efficiency simulator like sim city or a traditional war rts.
FoW provides more tension while omniscience removes it, but even with FoW you can have a happy-go-lucky rim time with a different AI director and/or challenge rating.

Rimworld will still be rimworld with or without FoW, in the end its about how many people will voice their preferences higher.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 23, 2015, 01:20:17 PM
I would like to recall a bit from Tynan : With a fog of war you cannot see elements of storytelling like a raider attacked by fauna or becoming broken.

But you would hear the gunfire, and perhaps find a bloody mess that tells the story.  Much of it also depends on the implementation of fog of war.  If a raider becomes dazed and confused, wanders around aimlessly for a while and then leaves and no one is ever near enough to see it, does it matter that you missed that story?  There are certainly cases now where I find meals dropped in the middle of nowhere far from where my base-camp is.  I eventually figured out that this is probably caused by NPCs starting to eat then deciding to leave the area mid meal, but the story of that colony was not made more interesting by seeing such an event.  In fact, I would argue, the mysterious dropped items were more interesting, not less.

Quote
I also support that FoW would not change the Killbox problem in any way. Killbox work precisely because AI are extremely predictable. And I'll go on saying that if we had FoW, not being able to count on that anymore could make raider/tribal quite frustrating (and again, I don't want to need guard outside of those clear event)

Well, it might help make it so that you don't need 50 tribals attacking you just to make a raid interesting.  Besides which, presumably one would develop research opportunities and buildings which would eventually ameliorate any FoW issues (in case you really like having to be attacked by an overwhelming hoard).  And is having a group of raiders sneak near your base from the edge of the map in the middle of the night actually more annoying then having them magically appearing in drop pods right on top of you?  I would argue that it is actually less annoying.

Quote from: Darth Fool on March 22, 2015, 08:18:35 PM
So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.

Fog of War wasn't removed because of kill boxes, so no, they wouldn't go away. Fog of War exaggerates the issue of kill boxes, elevating them from an efficient solution to a practically necessary one.

There's alot of hyperbole floating about regarding how not seeing parts of the map will magically add a magnitude of depth and story to the gameplay, especially when immediately following sentences of how Fog of War doesn't impact a major element of gameplay.

If you like FoW for thematic reasons, there's nothing wrong with that. Trying to sell it off as something more than it is doesn't fly much.

To answer both at once :
You would still be missing thing that can be considered good storytelling (you cannot claim that everything you'll miss would have been boring), restricting events around line/zone of sight, not seeing in action the (planned) new combat AI (yes, some of us like admiring the enemy).

I didn't support Rimworld for it to be a predictable and frustrating pseudo strategy game. In fact I support it precisely because combat is limited to how it serve the "harsh survivor settlement life" gameplay while expecting it to be less and less important as other game feature are added, like diplomacy.
I don't see myself as a warcamp-leader as much as a storyteller cooperating or rivaling with the game's one.

"ways to counter FoW" include things I don't <F-word> want.
Needing recon, binocular, camera with control center, putting gards, fail-safe tactic, Killbox, putting turret anywhere, making my peaceful settlement into a fortress, not knowing what the hell is going on, reloading save because of something I couldn't prepare for (like a sniper)...etc

Raiders landing inside my base don't feel anywhere as frustrating as I imagine micromanaging the line of sight of every colonist to make sure they are fighting an enemy they can beat and to know what the enemy is equipped with.

Funnily "countering FoW" also apply to balancing the game to fight-off the very concept (our goal is to see after all) and although I argued myself many time for toned-down raids, if the only way to play decently with FoW was to fight forces that shouldn't count as threatening, what the point ?

And I'm not assuming the worse from it...
Even seeing all the map and items and limiting an uncertainty veil to mask the position of entity (with even stealthiness stat), all with persistent access to any data gathered when in sight... I am still not interested.

If Tynan wanted to retry I said I would give him some trust, but his last answer seem to coincide with why I don't see FoW interesting... for this game.

Ps : someday I'll manage to not write wall of text over shorter arguments.

QuoteAlthough its quite fun to build and amass wealth, i think the overall theme of the game is to be under pressure until you manage to escape, and the challenges of managing your survivors until then. I mean, its not an efficiency simulator like sim city or a traditional war rts.
FoW provides more tension while omniscience removes it, but even with FoW you can have a happy-go-lucky rim time with a different AI director and/or challenge rating.

This! My read of Tynan's comments throughout this board is that he intends for this game to be a storyteller, and will make unpopular changes if he thinks it improves the storytelling ability of the game. Some of us feel FoW falls in that category, not just because of the tactical considerations (although they could be nice), but first because of the tension it can add. The popularity of the Darkness mod is one example of this unmet desire.

QuoteIf you like FoW for thematic reasons, there's nothing wrong with that. Trying to sell it off as something more than it is doesn't fly much.

Arguing that it is a completely nonviable mechanic because it wasn't well implemented/balanced before, or because you simply don't like the idea, also doesn't fly.

I do agree that it would likely require enormous balancing to do right, beyond just the implementation of the system. That's why I suggested a first step might be putting the framework in and encouraging modders to have it, if interested.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 23, 2015, 06:11:50 PM

Quote from: Darth Fool on March 22, 2015, 08:18:35 PM
So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.

Fog of War wasn't removed because of kill boxes, so no, they wouldn't go away. Fog of War exaggerates the issue of kill boxes, elevating them from an efficient solution to a practically necessary one.

Your devotion to kill boxes being the solution to everything is admirable, but misplaced.  Kill boxes are focused around building a centralized base, whereas dealing with FoW in a non-research-tech way would need to be focused around expanding your base.  It would not eliminate any existing need for a kill box, but neither would it make it more necessary.

Have you seen the movie "Predator" ?

QuoteThe story The strategy game follows an elite special forces team, on a mission to rescue hostages from guerrilla territory in Central America. Unbeknownst to the group, they are being stalked and hunted by a technologically advanced form of extraterrestrial life, the Predator.

The Predator comes for the thrill of the hunt. He is from a high-tech civilization, and hunts the toughest humans for sport. It doesn't care about conquest, or loot, just trophies.

Rimworld could have an event like that. But it's not possible without fog of war.

I think Weeping Angels are a better example of how fog of war adds tension. How long can your colonists go without blinking? :)

Quote from: Darth Fool on March 24, 2015, 07:46:15 AMYour devotion to kill boxes...

Not entirely my thing. I don't play years-long colonies, so I don't have issues of 30-large raiders. However, as I realize that this game doesn't revolve around strictly myself and the way I like to play the game, I remain cognizant of how suggestions I make will impact people beyond just myself.

Though, I think someone else put it better, earlier.

QuoteAlthough its quite fun to build and amass wealth, i think the overall theme of the game is to be under pressure until you manage to escape, and the challenges of managing your survivors until then. I mean, its not an efficiency simulator like sim city or a traditional war rts.

Such precious things said.

FoW will only place emphasis on efficiency, because unless you're going to litter the far parts of the map with untold riches, there is precious little point or value in exploring beyond what you need to progress. Just like there isn't horror in RTS games, there wouldn't be horror here. Even the 'tension' doesn't exist because the opponent isn't human, it's an AI, and not seeing it makes it no less predictable, nor the solutions against it any less viable.

FoW only 'adds' things in the most nebulous and reaching sense whereas it's mostly just a pain that doesn't fundamentally change anything otherwise.

By all means, mod it in, but this doesn't belong in core.

Quote from: MarvinKosh on March 24, 2015, 10:51:24 AM
I think Weeping Angels are a better example of how fog of war adds tension. How long can your colonists go without blinking? :)

I haven't seen it, and, in any case, Predator ship event is on my agenda :-). But I seem to remember Tynan is against alien races.

Weeping Angels aren't really a good example, because there is no mystery to them. You know where they are and exactly what they are going to do.

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 24, 2015, 11:57:29 AM

Quote from: MarvinKosh on March 24, 2015, 10:51:24 AM
I think Weeping Angels are a better example of how fog of war adds tension. How long can your colonists go without blinking? :)

I haven't seen it, and, in any case, Predator ship event is on my agenda :-). But I seem to remember Tynan is against alien races.

Doesn't have to be an alien, could just be some eccentric rich guy from a Glitterworld hunting people for sport.

Please stop arguing about killboxes it is Tiring. The Human race like any Other communicating pack Hunter will always find a way to kill Things and then . Optimize the method. Wolves do it, Dinosaurs did it, humans do it best. The killbox is a timeproven Concept, how Else Could something as squishy as Stoneage humans kill a Mammoth ? my two cases in Gaming are Df and the Sims.


So as Long as things can die in Rimworld, Players will find a way to Optimize. This will not go away. No matter how hard we wish.

I won't go into more details because everyone (including myself) are starting to repeat themselves, and in a discussion that is this opinion-dependent (there is no right or wrong really), everyone will just heavily weight their "facts" to fit each agenda. Although i do weight in contrary opinions, most are based on personal bias, so i'm much more interested in someone with a neutral standpoint, for example.

That said, most nay sayers have some arguments that feel more like fear than actual concerns, saying that fog of war will turn rimworld into a mindless rts is about the same as if rimworld had already fog of war and people wanted it out, then contrary people argue that no fog of war would turn rimworld into a bureaucratic sim-city-esque building game. The former and the latter are simply not true, fow doesn't define a genre.

In part I also feel that people are afraid to lose control -unable to see what and how hostile the world really is- in order to have that "perfect-game" which i consider a syndrome. So it's understandable that most people would dislike FoW because there's the possibility you lose your favorite pawn for a stealthy sniper or because you failed to detect an invasion, but that's not the mechanic's fault it's the incapability of accepting loss.

Everyone could go back and forth ad nauseam, undermining the "opposition's" arguments to elate their own, or, like some people like to do, to personally attack the person instead of the argument. I find it, at least after some time, this to be a negative way of conducting a discussion, so instead of seeing how bad other's position are, i propose that people explain and provide examples on how good their viewings are, so everyone view as a whole which would be better to build stories, thus the game. Perhaps there's even a good compromise from that.

*standing Slow clap*

I would like to Write something neutral, but writing on my mobile is a Real Pain. 😳

I have a feeling that when people hear "fog of war", they have a knee-jerk reaction "blizzard RTS".

There is more than one way to implement fog of war. I used some Starcraft 2 examples (comsat scan) because it's familiar, not because I'm a huge fan of the game or their design philosophy. Actually if there's something typical to blizzard RTS games, it's low vision range. Units move very quickly relative to their shooting range. And they can barely, if at all, see farther than they shoot.

Other RTS games do it differently. Total Annihilation uses fog of war, but units tend to see far, and there are radars that see through fog of war. You still see just red blips, but it gives a sense of comfort.

Emperor: Battle For Dune is another RTS with quite forgiving fog of war. What's interesting about it is that fog of war stays cleared for a few minutes. The game also has very cheap Scout infantry, they move fast, and are stealthy when not moving. Combined these features mean that fog of war is there, you have to make a certain effort to scout, but for most part you see at least the areas you care the most about. If you put your mind to it, you can hunt down all enemy scouts in an area and be free from prying eyes, until a new wave arrives. You often see where enemy armies are moving, as opposed to SC2 where scouting means "sending a sacrificial unit to enemy base to see what buildings are there, every few minutes". In SC2 you're mostly walking around in the dark, and armies often stumble on each other.

My point is: Fog of War doesn't automatically mean "I can't see stuff outside the stone throw range, like in Blizzard games".

One thing that in my opinion would ease the fears is making pawns see farther than they can shoot. Sniper rifle might be an exception, it depends on playtesting.

Quote from: 'Famous Game Designer'
Information glut isn't so much a failure as a missed opportunity.  Nothing breaks when there is too much information.  Testers don't get confused and cry for help.  In fact, the game hums along too smoothly because they understand everything.  That's why often, the hardest part about tackling information glut is realizing that it's happening in the first place.

Bonus points for identifying the game designer and the source ...

I didn’t read the entire thread, so I might be repeating already said things, but...

I’m conflicted about this, to say the least.

On one hand, this would take a lot of work to fit in with the game. Being unable to see past your line of sight would could be annoying, or downright bad, as we won’t know which place raiders will come, where that sieging party is, we won’t be able to spot new herds of animals coming by(and that could prove fatal during the winter months), and finding where the cargo pods or space refugees crashed, or being unable to find that hoard of alphabeavers could be very annoying. Searching for ancient ship parts, missing a battle between raiders and visiting townsmen(or a battle between insane animals and visitors. Or a bunch of raiders going mad and killing each other. Or.. well, you get my point.) Besides, it would also pretty much turn the mortar into a useless lump of metal.

Entities would need to only react to things within their view as well(Not being able to see raiders) After all, your pawn suddenly walking off to binge on beer(which crashed on a pod, which you never found), or being attacked by a insane rabbit that somehow could track you from a hundred meters away, raiders somehow seeing that hole in the wall from the other side of your base, or raiders ambushing you in a foggy night when you can’t even see them would’t make for an nice game.

You shouldn’t be able to shoot things you can’t see, but if you can see it, you should be able to fire at it. Of course, if you’re shooting at a raider a hundred meters away with a pistol, you won’t get much results. However, even blind and in total dark, the unit should still be aware of at least very basic directions, and be able to attack/move in the general direction(this is so you can’t put your defenders in total darkness in night and be totally safe.)

Raids, visitors, ship part and cargo pod crashes should tell you a direction(E.x A cargo pod has crashed in the north!/Pirates from [random pirate faction] are attacking from the southeast!/An ancient ship part has crashed in the West!/etc) instead of sending you to the location, and only send you to the location if you can see them.

There should also be methods of seeing better, like bionic eyes letting the colonist see in the dark(translation: letting you see better in the dark), sniper rifles(or more accurately, the scope on the sniper rifles) letting the pawns see further, etc.

And we’d probably also need more items, such as night vision goggles or spyglasses to equip to colonists letting them see in the dark, or see further, windows/embrasures/fences/prison bars/etc to let colonists see past ‘walls’, spotlights to light up the dark, cameras that can be used to ‘see’ when there are no people, maybe radars or watchtowers that reveal large areas around them, etc.

If done well, I believe that it could really improve the gameplay, making it a lot more fun.
I mean, think about it.
Getting a message about raiders, then seeing them get run over by rabid a group of insane boars.
Or.
You’re warned about raiders in the north. As your colonists pick up their weapons and strap on their armor vests, you hear gunshots. Your best scout goes out to see what’s going on. He sneaks out, puts his spyglass to his eye to see the last of the pirates run away, the ground littered with dead or incapitated raiders and the corpses of boars.

You get attacked by pirates during a foggy night. It’s a bit hard to see, but not really a problem. Things go on much like a day fight, the lowered hit rate rather hard to notice unless you pay very close attention. You easily track down every enemy as they retreat into the foggy night.
Or.
It’s a dark foggy night, and your colonists can barely see further then a few meters. You’re notified of raiders coming from the south, and you send out defenders as fast as you can. The dark fog hides the raiders from your view, even as it hides you from theirs. You bring out your colonist with the bionic eye and night vision goggles, and with the help of the high-tech vision aids, he is able to spot the raiders, and he fires, taking out the few you deem most dangerous. As the raiders come near, you turn off the lights in your base, plunging your base into darkness, blinding the raiders. You order the spotlights to be lit, and your colonists aim them at the direction of the oncoming raiders, the bright light cutting through the dark of the night and reveling the raiders as the rush your base. Your colonists fire, taking down the now-visible raiders. The raiders fire back, but with your colonists hidden by the fog and dark, only a few lucky raiders are able to hit your colonists. After a brief firefight, the raiders run back into the night, and you are forced to let them go as the vanish into the dark.

Siegers are attempting to siege your base. You rush them with heavily armored soldiers as soon as possible and chase them off.
Or.
A message alerts you of siegers setting up base in the east.
You send out a single scout with binoculars and scout out the enemy, noting their gear and numbers, before ordering the scout to retreat.
That night, you arm a few soldiers, and send them out to ambush th siegers as the sleep.
Your soldiers take up positions around the sleeping pirates, then a man runs in, then throws molotov cocktails into the group of raiders, before quickly retreating. The raiders wake up, and fire at your soldiers, but they are taking cover behind trees and boulders, and in dark, while the raiders are lit up by the molotov cocktail’s fire that reveals each and every one of them to your soldiers. Your soldiers make short work of the siegers, the rest running away.

This is just what I think.

Maybe we could convince someone to mod this into the game? So if you want FOW you have to download and install it. I liked the night time darkness mod, I can't remember what it's called, but it's not exactly a Fog of War, just a very dark screen at night. I want more of a greyed out fog and black unexplored FOW and line of sight, visual range, maybe extended visual range with a sniper rifle, bionics etc. and reduced visual range with loss of an eye or visual impairment due to age etc. with very dark screen at night too.

Quote from: AllenWL on March 25, 2015, 09:58:05 AM
Besides, it would also pretty much turn the mortar into a useless lump of metal.

I don't know if you've ever used a mortar before, but it IS a useless lump of metal without a spotter, relaying to the guy aiming and adjusting the mortar, where the last shell hit and what he should adjust in order to hit a target.

Quote from: AllenWL on March 25, 2015, 09:58:05 AM
On one hand, this would take a lot of work to fit in with the game. Being unable to see past your line of sight would could be annoying, or downright bad, as we won�t know which place raiders will come, where that sieging party is, we won�t be able to spot new herds of animals coming by(and that could prove fatal during the winter months), and finding where the cargo pods or space refugees crashed, or being unable to find that hoard of alphabeavers could be very annoying. Searching for ancient ship parts, missing a battle between raiders and visiting townsmen(or a battle between insane animals and visitors.

This leads back to why it was removed to begin with. Many of the elements that bring the world to live would be lost or would functionally cease to exist, not to mention the direction it would lean the gameplay.

There hasn't really been a solid case presented for what FoW introduces that makes the loss of all that worthwhile. Just nebulous reaching about people being 'afraid' of it or some of the most vague hyperbole I've recently seen to describe horror or a wealth of other non-specific, poorly defined things it would bring in.

Nobody has really tackled the question of why this needs to be in core when the appeal is strictly niche?

Your negativity and constant putting down others doesn't make a good case either, you can disagree without dropping hints or going verbose about it.

Quote from: Darth Fool on March 25, 2015, 07:51:04 AM

Quote from: 'Famous Game Designer'
Information glut isn't so much a failure as a missed opportunity.  Nothing breaks when there is too much information.  Testers don't get confused and cry for help.  In fact, the game hums along too smoothly because they understand everything.  That's why often, the hardest part about tackling information glut is realizing that it's happening in the first place.

Bonus points for identifying the game designer and the source ...

snap!

Quote from: AllenWL on March 25, 2015, 09:58:05 AM
On one hand, this would take a lot of work to fit in with the game. Being unable to see past your line of sight would could be annoying, or downright bad, as we won�t know which place raiders will come, where that sieging party is, we won�t be able to spot new herds of animals coming by(and that could prove fatal during the winter months), and finding where the cargo pods or space refugees crashed, or being unable to find that hoard of alphabeavers could be very annoying. Searching for ancient ship parts, missing a battle between raiders and visiting townsmen(or a battle between insane animals and visitors. Or a bunch of raiders going mad and killing each other. Or.. well, you get my point.) Besides, it would also pretty much turn the mortar into a useless lump of metal.

Hey Allen, those are some cool possibilities there, we already know what stories we can have without FoW, but if we take a moment, like you did, to consider all the potential FoW has, then we can actually see and ponder if we are missing something cool or not.

Some of the concerns you showed could be easily dealt with with explanations yourself gave, like matching firing range and LoS or message prompts about the general area of an event (such as a siege), something as simple as a "stirred flock of birds from the east" could instigate you to investigate or not. A lot of the other concerns some people could actually consider a feature of FoW, like an added challenge such as an extra challenge in finding food and shelter in a hostile environment (like ice biome).  This game is, after all, tied with the survival genre.

I think a CCTV and satellite launching research options, unlocking powered cameras with unlimited visual range and a console early on then full map view later, after a satellite launch would add to the game and remove any confusion that a FOW might bring.

It would be even better if the game had flocks of birds. And animals which are not moving plants. Then you could have flock of birds actually startled, and fly over your colony, and it would be through emergence rather than a hardcoded description.

If you're feeling insulted because I've insulted you, then that's an issue of me stepping over the line. If you're feeling insulted because I'm saying your argument is bad, that.. is kind of your own problem. I don't know what to say to that.

Quote from: AllenWL on March 25, 2015, 09:58:05 AMOr..

This is sort of the optimal thing to do anyways, for people who don't have a colony full of power armor. If you do have power armor, then rushing the base at night is still the better thing to do, FoW or no. Doesn't really change much there.

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 27, 2015, 06:58:21 AM
It would be even better if the game had flocks of birds. And animals which are not moving plants. Then you could have flock of birds actually startled, and fly over your colony, and it would be through emergence rather than a hardcoded description.

This is an interesting idea, though it'll make hunting a world less productive. I'd argue that this is something that works better without FoW, as you'd be able to tell whether the birds/animals moving by are just passing through or are actually startled by something.

It's not the first time you insult me or other people, and disguising it with indirects won't cut it, not for me or the moderators at least.

Your creative ways of undermining other's arguments, while amusingly funny, brings nothing to the discussion, thus dispensable.

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 27, 2015, 06:58:21 AM
It would be even better if the game had flocks of birds. And animals which are not moving plants. Then you could have flock of birds actually startled, and fly over your colony, and it would be through emergence rather than a hardcoded description.

I always wanted there to be birds but if they have an added function that would be beautiful design.

A bird connoisseur (or some wikiwarrior) could correct if necessary, but to differentiate between startled flocks from regular passing birds: a passing flock would fly in formation in a relatively slow cruising speed, while a startled flock could move faster en mass, without a formation. It's subtle but you can pick it up.

For hunting, we'd need some better AI to auto-hunt, where the hunter will roam the land until contact. But then we'd need some AI to, for example, flee from raiders or hostiles should be the case. But hunting needs an overhaul anyways...

Quote from: Necronomocoins on March 27, 2015, 05:28:10 AM
I think a CCTV and satellite launching research options, unlocking powered cameras with unlimited visual range and a console early on then full map view later, after a satellite launch would add to the game and remove any confusion that a FOW might bring.

Pretty much what i was thinking. Dunno about vanilla, but at least with some mods we could have a lot of granularity here, several steps in the tech tree. From makeshift radars limited in range and detection to extensive ground area surveillance radars, mobile dopplers, heat signature devices, advanced PIRs, satellites and etcetera. And of course a lot of 'side' sensors such as the cctv you mention and pretty much anything we could think about (its a sci fi, heh).

I'm thinking that if we ever get some of the "explorations" suggestions happen, FoW would come pretty handy.
cues "a whole new world" song.

There was one point, in another thread, when I crossed the line. I knew that I was crossing the line and I owned it. What you're talking about here is just vague alluding to nothing you've substantiated.. I suspect to dismiss my criticisms. I don't see this derailing as a coincidence when I press on a very simple question that still hasn't been addressed.

Perhaps someone else can answer it:

Why is a mod not sufficient for this, should Tynan introduce the structure for this? Nobody is objecting to that, if anything that's encouraged.

Why does this belong in core, given what it will remove, when anything supposedly gained is purely niche?

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 27, 2015, 07:58:08 AM

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 27, 2015, 06:58:21 AM
It would be even better if the game had flocks of birds. And animals which are not moving plants. Then you could have flock of birds actually startled, and fly over your colony, and it would be through emergence rather than a hardcoded description.

This is an interesting idea, though it'll make hunting a world less productive. I'd argue that this is something that works better without FoW, as you'd be able to tell whether the birds/animals moving by are just passing through or are actually startled by something.

Not necessarily. One of the first suggestions I've made on this forum was that hunting should be more about stalking rather than DPS. You could achieve that by making animals afraid while greatly reducing their HP. That shouldn't even affect combat much, perhaps learning Shooting from hunting would be slower. But you could still have pawns to be as bullet spongy as they are.

As for animals running out of field of view, there's the old trick of "go to last seen enemy position".

With all his talk of emergence, you'd think Tynan would rely more on systems and less on the magic 8-ball the Storyteller is.

Quote from: Necronomocoins on March 26, 2015, 05:01:58 PM

Quote from: AllenWL on March 25, 2015, 09:58:05 AM
Besides, it would also pretty much turn the mortar into a useless lump of metal.

I don't know if you've ever used a mortar before, but it IS a useless lump of metal without a spotter, relaying to the guy aiming and adjusting the mortar, where the last shell hit and what he should adjust in order to hit a target.

Dslyecxi's latest ShackTac video shows this beautifully...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OReQ1tJcfb8

Edit: Aww, no embedded uChoob? :(

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 27, 2015, 05:16:58 PM
Not necessarily. One of the first suggestions I've made on this forum was that hunting should be more about stalking rather than DPS. You could achieve that by making animals afraid while greatly reducing their HP. That shouldn't even affect combat much, perhaps learning Shooting from hunting would be slower. But you could still have pawns to be as bullet spongy as they are.

Hmm. I think it's only a matter of dps because it's a measure of how fast you can kill the animals to get the most meat. From the system you are describing, the emphasis changes from single-target dps to aoe-dps. i.e. hitting as many different targets at one time as possible.

The end result is still more effort for less meat, though.

On the flock of birds bit, I was meaning that with FoW, it's not much to tell a flock of fleeing birds from a flock of birds just flying by. Unless you're implementing that birds only take flight to disturbances that a colony should take interest in.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 27, 2015, 07:58:08 AM

Quote from: AllenWL on March 25, 2015, 09:58:05 AMOr..

This is sort of the optimal thing to do anyways, for people who don't have a colony full of power armor. If you do have power armor, then rushing the base at night is still the better thing to do, FoW or no. Doesn't really change much there.

True, but it still ends up being simply sending soldiers there, then having them shoot them all.
Having to say, light up the field to widen your view, or even choosing between night and day(night lets you ambush, day gives you much better vision) could add some new tactics. Plus, it could also add to the mood, or have a slightly better emerging story.

Although, this is purely my opinion

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 27, 2015, 04:36:52 PM
There was one point, in another thread, when I crossed the line. I knew that I was crossing the line and I owned it. What you're talking about here is just vague alluding to nothing you've substantiated.. I suspect to dismiss my criticisms. I don't see this derailing as a coincidence when I press on a very simple question that still hasn't been addressed.

If by owning it - and i blame my non-native english - i hope you don't mean any sort of "win", because that would be far from the truth.

I'm talking about how you (ironically vague) dismissed every single post as either 'vague hyperboles' or some kind of reaching out-to-masses discourse. You didn't point out what exactly or how exactly they are so, and even if you didn't drop any names we know who you are alluding (including) to.

QuoteThis leads back to why it was removed to begin with. Many of the elements that bring the world to live would be lost or would functionally cease to exist, not to mention the direction it would lean the gameplay.

Please, do cite them, so we could discuss if or how they would be lost, or rather replaced if its the case.
Which direction exactly would the gameplay lean to? Is it a bad direction? Why?

QuoteThere hasn't really been a solid case presented for what FoW introduces that makes the loss of all that worthwhile. Just nebulous reaching about people being 'afraid' of it or some of the most vague hyperbole I've recently seen to describe horror or a wealth of other non-specific, poorly defined things it would bring in.

This is a discussion, not a thesis defense. Even so, there has been a lot o examples and descriptions and they are not any more vague than at least anything you've said here.

Then, never mind the P.A...

QuoteNobody has really tackled the question of why this needs to be in core when the appeal is strictly niche?

There's nothing niche about fog of war. If you want examples on how FoW operates i suggest you play any game which features it in one way or another. Hint: There's a lot. They're not all rts games.

QuoteWhy is a mod not sufficient for this, should Tynan introduce the structure for this? Nobody is objecting to that, if anything that's encouraged.

Basic structure is a given, and if investing in it, why not go all the way?
Nevermind the myriad of little balancing here and there to keep it running smoothly.

QuoteWhy does this belong in core, given what it will remove, when anything supposedly gained is purely niche?

Nobody here knows this belongs in core, some people think it should and are trying to have a discussion on the potentials of it.

Again, there's nothing niche about fog of war, and what is it exactly that would be lost?

The only arguments made against FoW can be resumed in:

a)It will take development time
b)It will turn RW into a rts
c)We can't see all the stories unfold
d)it doesn't add anything interesting

While i absolutely concur with a, everything else is either a personal opinion or a misunderstanding of how FoW could work.

I'm still waiting for examples on how exactly FoW would turn RW into an (starcraft-like) rts

Fow doesn't so much prevent rather than delay the same stories we have without FoW, while providing their own potential stories.

There's a lot of interesting things that FoW adds, some have been suggested and more will be, if we spend more time in creativity instead of retorts.

Quote
On the flock of birds bit, I was meaning that with FoW, it's not much to tell a flock of fleeing birds from a flock of birds just flying by. Unless you're implementing that birds only take flight to disturbances that a colony should take interest in.

As i previously wrote, a telling sign would be that passing birds would fly in a said speed (slow, most likely) and in formation (V most likely), while startled flocks would just fly faster and without a formation (since they are not migrating, just fleeing).


-
I still would like to hear good stuff from either positions instead of focusing on the (arguably) bad.
Doesn't hurt to say one more, but there's nothing wrong with no fow, but there's also nothing wrong with it.

Tynan's post has been cited several times throughout the thread, stating in no uncertain terms what he believes is lost through the implementation of FoW and why it was removed. I am incredulous at the sense that this needs further clarification - particularly from someone not new to the thread. Read the thread.

..and really, those three words are most of what I have to say to the length of that tl;dr because I'm almost certain that this is some level of concern trolling.

To what's worth addressing, again, no response I'm aware of in this thread is saying that the structure for modders to implement FoW should not be added to the game. Nobody is saying that. Literally, nobody anywhere in this thread has stated that modders should not have the ability to add FoW mechanics.

I'll eat my words if I overlooked something.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 27, 2015, 11:18:09 PM
Tynan's post has been cited several times throughout the thread, stating in no uncertain terms what he believes is lost through the implementation of FoW and why it was removed. I am incredulous at the sense that this needs further clarification - particularly from someone not new to the thread. Read the thread.

..and really, those three words are most of what I have to say to the length of that tl;dr because I'm almost certain that this is some level of concern trolling.

To what's worth addressing, again, no response I'm aware of in this thread is saying that the structure for modders to implement FoW should not be added to the game. Nobody is saying that. Literally, nobody anywhere in this thread has stated that modders should not have the ability to add FoW mechanics.

I'll eat my words if I overlooked something.

If anything, you are the one trolling a thread discussing the implications of fog of war, if implemented. Reasonable discussion on that topic has been completely derailed by you (alone), so I'm going to stop posting in this thread after this. Once half the posts in the last few pages are bickering about your wording, you know you've succeeded in trolling what was a reasonable conversation.

I think it's worth highlighting that your positive feedback throughout this board is generally quite reasonable and tactful.

That said, your negative feedback (saying why something is a bad idea) could use a lot of work. I'd say most positive posters on this thread could easily misread your so-called idea-focused feedback as personal criticism. For example, saying "I disagree that this is a appropriate gameplay mechanic (full stop)" and "I'm not saying you are an idiot, just that only an idiot could come up with such bad ideas" are worlds apart in civility. Other posters have called you on this in other threads and, like I said, I think its worth stating here. Why post more than once in a thread discussing a concept you abhor?

A fun exercise in debate is to ask if there is anything, any scrap of argument, that could convince the other side to change their view. If the answer is "nothing", then there is no need to waste energy trying to change someone's faith.

I'm approaching 330 posts on this board over the course of several months. There was, literally, one other thread a while back, totaling 1% of my aggregate posting was an issue because I lost my cool. I'm not passive when I'm aggressive.  Even in this thread, it's conspicuously long, tetris-stacked walls of text making flagrant accusations that stand out from the discussions.

That's the big difference here. I attack ideas that I think are bad and engage with people who raise points of discussion. You and Masters? You're just attacking me and riding that to dismiss criticism. That's cool, I guess.

I only regret my contribution by responding to a personal attack because some people take criticism of their suggestions personally, or get offended when people don't fully agree with them. I don't know what to say that. There simply are no kind words.

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