Jump to 26:50 in this walkthrough video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAmyi9FQR54
And see how colonists are already killing each other on THEIR FIRST NIGHT of surviving together in the wild. This shit makes no sense.
This was "only" a social fight, but yeah, the berserk mood set still makes no sense. Normal people just don't go on a killing spree when they are sad, only psychopaths do that.
A couple of thoughts. First, i think it totally makes sense for two of your colonists to get into a fist fight the first night they are unexpectedly stranded together on an unknown world with only a few bare minimum resources and forced to try and build a home to survive. That has got to be mega stressful.
Having said that, my other thought is that fist fights are too often lethal. It feels like half of all fist fights end in a death. That could be toned down a bit. Maybe there needs to be a lesser version of a brawl that differs from all-out melee against raiders or other known hostiles.
No, when you have no shelter, little to no food and are surrounded by hostile animals, your survival instincts kick in and you'll do anything to survive. That should be their top priority, not their fricking feelings. It just goes to show how fragile Rimworld colonists are. They are basically just a bunch of green-hair liberal college kids who constantly accuse people of offending them and demand "safe spaces".
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 20, 2016, 08:04:57 PM
No, when you have no shelter, little to no food and are surrounded by hostile animals, your survival instincts kick in and you'll do anything to survive. That should be their top priority, not their fricking feelings. It just goes to show how fragile Rimworld colonists are. They are basically just a bunch of green-hair liberal collage kids who constantly accuse people of offending them and demand "safe spaces".
Just to clarify...you first describe how (in your opinion) their reaction is unrealistic, followed immediately by an analogy to real-world people.
Not everyone will react to that kind of a situation the same way. Also, what you are describing is more about adrenaline and reacting to short-term dangers. Long term dangers like being stranded in the wild require longer term mental fortitude. Some people may deal with it well and be productive. Others might crumble and start fights. Maybe it's because he is having trouble coping. Maybe it's a power-play to try and assert himself as an authority figure. There could be any number of reasons. Personally I am surprised that more fights don't break out on the first couple nights.
Short of referencing a psych study it's all subjective. I recommend focusing more on whether or not the game is fun and balanced rather than realism.
Social fights have nothing to do with the mood system. It has to do with the compatibility rating and what each pawn thinks of the other (it can be between -100 and +100)
I think you are misunderstanding two mechanics at play here.
Think of this...
You came home from a car crash with a broken leg. Then you find your house burned down with your entire family in them. Suddenly from behind you, thieves quickly steal your wallet and phone. You want to call the police, but the phone line is down. You are still in withdrawal from alcohol addiction. What do you do?
I don't think you would describe yourself as just "sad".
Remember, in RimWorld, there's no law, no road rules, no fire brigade, no ambulance, no counselling service...
And also, no people are alike. Even if you don't go berserk or commit suicide, others may.
Jeez im dark
There needs to be some consideration not only on the backgrounds of the pawns involved, but also for the melee skill of both parties involved, as well as bionics and perhaps armor.
Someone who doesn't have all the worst social traits shouldn't pick a fist fight with a melee master brawler with powerclaws for hands, for example. They should get a penalty for being powerless against the source of their frustrations, and the stronger party a bonus for making someone else back down.
Quote from: ArguedPiano on December 20, 2016, 09:12:11 PM
Social fights have nothing to do with the mood system. It has to do with the compatibility rating and what each pawn thinks of the other (it can be between -100 and +100)
I think you are misunderstanding two mechanics at play here.
The happier they are, the less likely they start social fights. It is pretty observable by just playing the game on extreme difficulty. (Especially if you keep them drunk and drugged all the time and they never start any shit) Unless they changed that too in Alpha 16.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 20, 2016, 08:04:57 PM
No, when you have no shelter, little to no food and are surrounded by hostile animals, your survival instincts kick in and you'll do anything to survive. That should be their top priority, not their fricking feelings. It just goes to show how fragile Rimworld colonists are. They are basically just a bunch of green-hair liberal college kids who constantly accuse people of offending them and demand "safe spaces".
OUCH! I pricked my finger on all that edge you've got going. Keep the viewpoints to yourself there friend.
Quote from: Ramsis on December 20, 2016, 10:38:43 PM
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 20, 2016, 08:04:57 PM
No, when you have no shelter, little to no food and are surrounded by hostile animals, your survival instincts kick in and you'll do anything to survive. That should be their top priority, not their fricking feelings. It just goes to show how fragile Rimworld colonists are. They are basically just a bunch of green-hair liberal college kids who constantly accuse people of offending them and demand "safe spaces".
OUCH! I pricked my finger on all that edge you've got going. Keep the viewpoints to yourself there friend.
Okay, fine o_O
The mood system is working as intended but fist fights are too lethal with pawns who are experienced melee fighters. The worst case I've had is one melee master with a cybernetic arm kill 3 people. They were new recruits so I didn't really mind but when he blinded my best doctor I had to put him down.
I'm really hoping that some kind of tranquilizer guns will be added into the game...Those will be soo helpful in this kind of situations. But then again, people aren't supposed to be going on killing sprees in the first place. Only psychopaths should have a chance to do that. That way you can either reject pawns with the psychopath trait when they want to join your colony or simply never give them melee weapons.
A Counselor job would be helpful. Someone who can go around and talk to people who are in a bad mental shape and help balance them out.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 20, 2016, 08:04:57 PM
No, when you have no shelter, little to no food and are surrounded by hostile animals, your survival instincts kick in and you'll do anything to survive. That should be their top priority, not their fricking feelings. It just goes to show how fragile Rimworld colonists are. They are basically just a bunch of green-hair liberal college kids who constantly accuse people of offending them and demand "safe spaces".
SHOTS FIRED
But in the right direction to be honest... °_°
Quote from: BoogieMan on December 21, 2016, 06:15:09 AM
A Counselor job would be helpful. Someone who can go around and talk to people who are in a bad mental shape and help balance them out.
This. It would also give a LOT more utility to social-specialized characters, beyond sheriff/trade rep ::) .
It also could be easy to implement. Just do two things:
1) Automatically improve relationships between people with high social skill and everyone else. People with good social skills know how to manipulate people to like them, and benefit more from good relations than poor ones.
2) Create a network effect with people with social skills. If A has good social skills, and B likes A, and C likes A, then A should be able to encourage B & C to get along. Basically do a "2-step" relationship test modified by the social skill of the intermediary.
Then you don't have to introduce any special "counselling" activity. Just by being there and talking to people those with good social skills can help the colony get along. Eventually everyone likes everyone.
(Note that this includes the "butterfly" effect; Tony keeps getting rebuffed by Mia, but Jane wants them to get along and chitchats with both of them and "pollinates" the relationship, and before you know it Tony and Mia are in the sack together.)
If only people not of the "Kind" trait could make others feel happy as well.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 21, 2016, 02:19:45 AM
I'm really hoping that some kind of tranquilizer guns will be added into the game...Those will be soo helpful in this kind of situations. But then again, people aren't supposed to be going on killing sprees in the first place. Only psychopaths should have a chance to do that. That way you can either reject pawns with the psychopath trait when they want to join your colony or simply never give them melee weapons.
For the record, extreme breaks in real life would be suicide, but Tynan probably doesn't want to put that in. Just like the old "Traitor" special event. It actually sucks for the player.
Actually, I think extreme breaks are completely fine right now. You wouldn't want colonists just randomly dropping off due to bad mood without any way to stop it. At least with berserking, you can wall up the doors to a room.
Also would the "New Colony Optimism" thought be the colonists' survival instincts in action? Or the "Very Low Expectations" thought? A person's survival instincts turn off once they are exposed to the same environment for a long time, no matter how dangerous.
If you have trouble dealing with berserkers and it's because the person's relative died, just incapacitate them via peg leg removal, or restrict them to a psychiatric ward(with non-flammable walls).
Quote from: Ramsis on December 20, 2016, 10:38:43 PM
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 20, 2016, 08:04:57 PM
No, when you have no shelter, little to no food and are surrounded by hostile animals, your survival instincts kick in and you'll do anything to survive. That should be their top priority, not their fricking feelings. It just goes to show how fragile Rimworld colonists are. They are basically just a bunch of green-hair liberal college kids who constantly accuse people of offending them and demand "safe spaces".
OUCH! I pricked my finger on all that edge you've got going. Keep the viewpoints to yourself there friend.
Wow you didn't even lock the topic... Is it because there's too much discussion? Sorry
Quote from: Shurp on December 21, 2016, 05:27:21 PM
It also could be easy to implement. Just do two things:
1) Automatically improve relationships between people with high social skill and everyone else. People with good social skills know how to manipulate people to like them, and benefit more from good relations than poor ones.
2) Create a network effect with people with social skills. If A has good social skills, and B likes A, and C likes A, then A should be able to encourage B & C to get along. Basically do a "2-step" relationship test modified by the social skill of the intermediary.
Then you don't have to introduce any special "counselling" activity. Just by being there and talking to people those with good social skills can help the colony get along. Eventually everyone likes everyone.
(Note that this includes the "butterfly" effect; Tony keeps getting rebuffed by Mia, but Jane wants them to get along and chitchats with both of them and "pollinates" the relationship, and before you know it Tony and Mia are in the sack together.)
I really like this idea!! The counselor idea is pretty good too, which is, funny enough, implemented in Dead State. There's this flight attendant girl who's good at literally nothing...but when you make her a counselor and she'll just give everybody at the base a nice morale boost. That's really what we need in Rimworld.
But the very social person A, although he's a good talker and people like him, maybe he doesn't like them back.
Kinda like me, back in highshool, I was a good talker and everyone like being around me, but I honestly hated the out of control decadence some people conducted.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 20, 2016, 08:04:57 PM
No, when you have no shelter, little to no food and are surrounded by hostile animals, your survival instincts kick in and you'll do anything to survive.
And what if one of the guys you're stuck with is an asshole who ate all the food and laughed in your face? You're starving, pissed off, freezing,
and terrified all at the same time. You'll just smile and say, "Excuse me, please don't do that again, my good man"? I don't think so.
Indeed, beating the shit out of that asshole who thinks he's too good to haul is a subset of "anything".
The mood system is broken, but not in the way you've said.
The big problem with the mood system right now IMO is that the numbers for buffs and debuffs are all over the place, especially debuffs. But the system just falls to pieces when Starvation occurs.
Starvation (Trivial) is -22. Its described as feeling fuzzy and unfocused. Thats a ludicrous number when you compare it to certain other debuffs. It jumps to -29 at moderate.
Being in crippling pain where a colonist is literally screaming "KILL ME NOW" is -20, Killing someone by harvesting their organs is a -6 (On top of a -7 for them dying). Losing your child is -25, so is losing a spouse.
But hold on, Very Comfortable is a +6, and people routinely get that by sleeping in a poor quality wooden bed! Even a normal bed can trip the extremely comfortable +8 bonus.
So tearing some dudes heart out is sad (-13), but having a pretty okay bed (+8) and steak for dinner (+5) makes it all better?
Starvation is the big one though, because when people get starvation debuff, they usually break extremely quickly. -22 is HUGE early game, and what happens when a colonist breaks? Oh. They don't eat. Well thats fantastic.
I literally had a colonist do "sad wander" from not getting any food, then wander around outside in a snow storm while new food was brought in until they starved to death while there was food in the fridge.
I had another berserk due to lack of food While he was eating his food, then die of starvation because berserking people won't eat.
Quote from: DirectorBright on December 23, 2016, 04:59:28 AM
The mood system is broken, but not in the way you've said.
The big problem with the mood system right now IMO is that the numbers for buffs and debuffs are all over the place, especially debuffs. But the system just falls to pieces when Starvation occurs.
Starvation (Trivial) is -22. Its described as feeling fuzzy and unfocused. Thats a ludicrous number when you compare it to certain other debuffs. It jumps to -29 at moderate.
Being in crippling pain where a colonist is literally screaming "KILL ME NOW" is -20, Killing someone by harvesting their organs is a -6 (On top of a -7 for them dying). Losing your child is -25, so is losing a spouse.
But hold on, Very Comfortable is a +6, and people routinely get that by sleeping in a poor quality wooden bed! Even a normal bed can trip the extremely comfortable +8 bonus.
So tearing some dudes heart out is sad (-13), but having a pretty okay bed (+8) and steak for dinner (+5) makes it all better?
Starvation is the big one though, because when people get starvation debuff, they usually break extremely quickly. -22 is HUGE early game, and what happens when a colonist breaks? Oh. They don't eat. Well thats fantastic.
I literally had a colonist do "sad wander" from not getting any food, then wander around outside in a snow storm while new food was brought in until they starved to death while there was food in the fridge.
I had another berserk due to lack of food While he was eating his food, then die of starvation because berserking people won't eat.
This just made my night =D
Quote from: DirectorBright on December 23, 2016, 04:59:28 AM
The mood system is broken, but not in the way you've said.
The big problem with the mood system right now IMO is that the numbers for buffs and debuffs are all over the place, especially debuffs. But the system just falls to pieces when Starvation occurs.
Starvation (Trivial) is -22. Its described as feeling fuzzy and unfocused. Thats a ludicrous number when you compare it to certain other debuffs. It jumps to -29 at moderate.
Being in crippling pain where a colonist is literally screaming "KILL ME NOW" is -20, Killing someone by harvesting their organs is a -6 (On top of a -7 for them dying). Losing your child is -25, so is losing a spouse.
But hold on, Very Comfortable is a +6, and people routinely get that by sleeping in a poor quality wooden bed! Even a normal bed can trip the extremely comfortable +8 bonus.
So tearing some dudes heart out is sad (-13), but having a pretty okay bed (+8) and steak for dinner (+5) makes it all better?
Starvation is the big one though, because when people get starvation debuff, they usually break extremely quickly. -22 is HUGE early game, and what happens when a colonist breaks? Oh. They don't eat. Well thats fantastic.
I literally had a colonist do "sad wander" from not getting any food, then wander around outside in a snow storm while new food was brought in until they starved to death while there was food in the fridge.
I had another berserk due to lack of food While he was eating his food, then die of starvation because berserking people won't eat.
Yeah, I hate it when that happens. I've literally had colonists to break for being hungry, while they're eating!
I've yet to have something as extreme as actual death happening, but it's still somewhat ridiculous (in a comical way) that one has a mental breakdown for not eating while they're eating their
human meat delicious meal.
I'm pretty sure people react differently to the events, which gives or not gives certain thoughts and concrete numbers.
Let's call current reaction model "a pussy".
Now there should be more different reaction models for different colonists and then we could even stand some "pussies" around.
Quote from: paragonid on December 23, 2016, 08:10:56 AM
I'm pretty sure people react differently to the events, which gives or not gives certain thoughts and concrete numbers.
Let's call current reaction model "a pussy".
Now there should be more different reaction models for different colonists and then we could even stand some "pussies" around.
Our colonists, at least those we start, with come from an environment where they would have been pampered by the greatest high tech conveniences. All of them would be what we would consider "pussies".
What would be very cool to see is our colonists gradually becoming stronger or desensitized to the hardships they face. Modifiers like stoic, combat veteran, desensitized to death, etc...
Yeah. It's OK for starving colonists to break, but they should continue to check for food availability and change their "break type" to "pig out" when they sense some.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 20, 2016, 08:04:57 PM
No, when you have no shelter, little to no food and are surrounded by hostile animals, your survival instincts kick in and you'll do anything to survive. That should be their top priority, not their fricking feelings.
Who leads? No really. Who leads? Who gets to make the plans and start telling everyone else what to do and how to do it?
In the movies its all so clear cut...there's always a super charismatic, knowledgeable dude and everyone bows to his will.
In real life (or this simulation) though? I'm pretty sure most everyone thinks that they are smart, are capable, could survive a tough situation...
If that's the case, who leads? Person A, B, and C all land on the planet, and all 3 of them think they know how shit should get done. I don't know about you, but were I stranded in a survival situation, the very FIRST thing that would likely start a fist (or worse) fight with me would probably be someone I thought of as less capable trying to take charge and make the plans. And it wouldn't even take until the second day, or even the second hour.
Survival instincts aren't cooperation instincts. They're the exact opposite. Its in the quote: "YOU'LL do anything to survive" - screw the other guys.
I absolutely disagree with your assertation that extreme stress and life/death survival situations would make everyone cooperate BETTER, most especially if there were no risk of outside repurcussions after the fact (no law would try you for crimes committed during the incident). For proof of that second point look no further than the behavior of people shielded by the anonymity of the internet.
I'd actually disagree with either of your assertions ;D. You simply cannot predict how you, much less anyone else, will react in extremis, until/unless it happens.
I've had some...hairy...somewhat analogous situations (chaotic, potential free-for-all, dangerous) in my life, and from what I've seen, people usually tend to band together, esepcially if they have some kind of common background (say, crashed spaceship? :) ) and if no "alphas" (of any sex, mind you) step forward, the group(s) damn well "volunteer" some poor bastard(s) to do the job.
This type of organization is probably how civilization started in the 1st place, you know; and that seeking of the "pack" (no, NOT "herd", make that mistake at your peril) is a primal instinct for us. And if only a small minority object to a given "alpha"/leader, the pack simply ejects the minority.
Will this always happen? Of course not, it's just a tendency, you know. But I think it would, more often than not. Most people are smart enough to know that there's safety in numbers, after all; it's not an aphorism for nothing. Yes, in many direct ways survival instincts ARE cooperation instincts, throughout our history as a species.
I don't think your point re: crimes and the internet really applies here, either, because we're talking about situations involving immediate personal danger and stress.
Limdood: Nobody's gonna start arguing who should be in charge when there's a fucking hole in the boat and water's leaking in. Everyone would just start peddling like crazy towards the only island on the horizon. You vastly underestimate what people are capable of. Everybody (maybe even you) is a survivalist when push comes to shove. It's the result of millions of years of evolution.
Quote from: GiantSpaceHamster on December 20, 2016, 07:46:37 PM
Having said that, my other thought is that fist fights are too often lethal. It feels like half of all fist fights end in a death. That could be toned down a bit. Maybe there needs to be a lesser version of a brawl that differs from all-out melee against raiders or other known hostiles.
Yes....like smacking each other with white gloves and declaring the winner as the last one to say "Ouch"! :D I agree.....death by fist is pretty brutal.
Quote from: Anomaly on December 23, 2016, 12:03:41 PM
Our colonists, at least those we start, with come from an environment where they would have been pampered by the greatest high tech conveniences. All of them would be what we would consider "pussies".
What would be very cool to see is our colonists gradually becoming stronger or desensitized to the hardships they face. Modifiers like stoic, combat veteran, desensitized to death, etc...
I would like to see that too.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
Limdood: Nobody's gonna start arguing who should be in charge when there's a fucking hole in the boat and water's leaking in. Everyone would just start peddling like crazy towards the only island on the horizon. You vastly underestimate what people are capable of. Everybody (maybe even you) is a survivalist when push comes to shove. It's the result of millions of years of evolution.
That's because everybody wants to get in the same direction (geometrically and figuratively) in this case. Wouldn't work out as well in other scenarios.
I'd like to bring a quote from a famous person:
Quote from: JokerMadness is like gravity. All it needs is a little push.
Quote from: Thyme on December 24, 2016, 03:09:39 PM
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
Limdood: Nobody's gonna start arguing who should be in charge when there's a fucking hole in the boat and water's leaking in. Everyone would just start peddling like crazy towards the only island on the horizon. You vastly underestimate what people are capable of. Everybody (maybe even you) is a survivalist when push comes to shove. It's the result of millions of years of evolution.
That's because everybody wants to get in the same direction (geometrically and figuratively) in this case. Wouldn't work out as well in other scenarios.
I'd like to bring a quote from a famous person:
Quote from: JokerMadness is like gravity. All it needs is a little push.
What about a fire in the house? Or a dangerous predator approaches? Or a tornado being only 50 miles away? Would people start arguing who should be in charge instead of reacting to imminent danger then?
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 03:38:11 PMWhat about a fire in the house? Or a dangerous predator approaches? Or a tornado being only 50 miles away? Would people start arguing who should be in charge instead of reacting to imminent danger then?
If your colonists are beating each other up instead of fighting fires, you are bad at the game. Get better and keep your people happier.
If that doesn't work, use the Prepare Carefully mod and make all your colonists Iron-Willed Steadfast Optimists. Then you'll have your heroes who never flinch and always work together in perfect harmony under stressful circumstances with no leadership - just like in real life. ::)
Quote from: Zombra on December 24, 2016, 04:07:56 PM
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 03:38:11 PMWhat about a fire in the house? Or a dangerous predator approaches? Or a tornado being only 50 miles away? Would people start arguing who should be in charge instead of reacting to imminent danger then?
If your colonists are beating each other up instead of fighting fires, you are bad at the game. Get better and keep your people happier.
If that doesn't work, use the Prepare Carefully mod and make all your colonists Iron-Willed Steadfast Optimists. Then you'll have your heroes who never flinch and always work together in perfect harmony under stressful circumstances with no leadership - just like in real life. ::)
How the fuck do you command berserking pawns to fight fire? You just went full git gud fanboy. You never go full git gud fanboy.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 04:54:13 PMHow the fuck do you command berserking pawns to fight fire?
You let that one guy throw his little fit while your other 5 guys go fight the fire. If he's causing too much of a problem, you punch him out first. It's not that hard.
Quote from: Zombra on December 24, 2016, 05:10:01 PM
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 04:54:13 PMHow the fuck do you command berserking pawns to fight fire?
You let that one guy throw his little fit while your other 5 guys go fight the fire. If he's causing too much of a problem, you punch him out first. It's not that hard.
I said they weren't supposed to be berserking in that kind of situations at all, and you were like,"if they are berserking instead of fighting fire, then you are bad at this game." What are you smoking?
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 05:17:53 PMI said they weren't supposed to be berserking in that kind of situations at all, and you were like,"if they are berserking instead of fighting fire, then you are bad at this game." What are you smoking?
Sorry, you're absolutely right. What I meant was that while you can't control it completely (nor should you), if your guys are berserk all the time, you're screwing up. The point stands that the mood system is not the disaster you're making it out to be, and doesn't require "fixing".
So in regards to the two topics here that OP conflated, yes, the system needs overhaul:
For social fights, I can understand wanting to punch someone and ending up with an all-out brawl.
What I can't understand is that noone tries to stop it and neither party stops until the other is unconscious.
Even if noone breaks it up, normally, IRL, someone gets an upper-hand and the loser would submit and/or go into a protective pose and just get bruises from them on until the aggressor figures it's been enough, probably with some agreement to the aggressor's demands.
There should be a sheriff role that deals with troublemakers by either stopping a fight that happens (and punishing the aggressor) or preventing a fight in the first place, and pawns that are in lots of sudden pain should probably go into a defensive fetal submission state for a while (both submitting and likely ending a social fight, or at least preventing wounds to eyes and other vital areas, as well as possibly hoping for mercy during a raid). Additionally, it'd be nice if relations from the aggressor's side improved somewhat if they won the fight.
More of a beef with the terrible melee combat system in general, but I also really don't like that melee fights with fists can lead to stuff like smashed eyes fairly often. I think it's not so much the chances of a particular area being injured as it is that melee incurs injuries seemingly with every blow, leading to dozens of bruises where you'd normally only expect a few.
As for the mood system, there's lots more wrong with it.
Let's start with mental breaks:
Broken pawns should really prioritize eating if starving, and forget their mood problem temporarily while eating (and permanently if eating solves their mood).
Pawns shouldn't remove clothing as part of sad wandering. It makes no sense (people pretty much only undress from madness when dying of hypothermia, not when they have a fit about the sorry state of their room) and is incredibly frustrating due to micromanagement (let's all play Hunt the Forbidden Pants!, the party game your insane uncle insists builds character).
Most people will smash stuff when in a rage. Starting fistfights with everything that moves is not too realistic.
Now, as for the mood system itself:
There's no penalty to unhappy colonists besides mental breaks (which really seems to be why mental breaks that make no sense are in the game to begin with). Why aren't people less productive when they're sleep-deprived and sad?
There's also no benefit to happy colonists.
No respect for hierarchy of needs. Generally speaking, people who are starving do not care a single iota about not having a fancy enough bedroom. A lot of the issues with having too frequent mental breaks is because stuff like having an old scar on the leg compounds with other minor issues atop serious stuff like starvation. Similarly, people dying of malaria should probably not be complaining that the doctor disturbed their sleep (which shouldn't even be possible in their condition) by coming in to treat them after dark.
Quote from: Nebbie on December 25, 2016, 04:13:39 AM
So in regards to the two topics here that OP conflated, yes, the system needs overhaul:
For social fights, I can understand wanting to punch someone and ending up with an all-out brawl.
What I can't understand is that noone tries to stop it and neither party stops until the other is unconscious.
Even if noone breaks it up, normally, IRL, someone gets an upper-hand and the loser would submit and/or go into a protective pose and just get bruises from them on until the aggressor figures it's been enough, probably with some agreement to the aggressor's demands.
There should be a sheriff role that deals with troublemakers by either stopping a fight that happens (and punishing the aggressor) or preventing a fight in the first place, and pawns that are in lots of sudden pain should probably go into a defensive fetal submission state for a while (both submitting and likely ending a social fight, or at least preventing wounds to eyes and other vital areas, as well as possibly hoping for mercy during a raid). Additionally, it'd be nice if relations from the aggressor's side improved somewhat if they won the fight.
More of a beef with the terrible melee combat system in general, but I also really don't like that melee fights with fists can lead to stuff like smashed eyes fairly often. I think it's not so much the chances of a particular area being injured as it is that melee incurs injuries seemingly with every blow, leading to dozens of bruises where you'd normally only expect a few.
Haha yeah, good point. Realistically the colonists would probably drop whatever they are doing and go watch or break up the fight (It'd be pretty awesome and hilarious at the same time if everyone ends up circling the fighters and cheering as the fight goes on haha!) But as of now our colonists do NOTHING. They just keep on playing that horseshoe in the very same room the fight broke out and be like,"eh, just another day in Rimworld" lol.
Just a random addendum to this thread: the shape of the human face has been heavily modified by evolution to protect against fists. "Social fighting" has a long history. Losing teeth and eyesight are common problems with bare-knuckle fighting, as is broken hands.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12112/abstract
"The protective buttressing hypothesis provides a functional explanation for the puzzling observation that although humans do not fight by biting our species exhibits pronounced sexual dimorphism in the strength and power of the jaw and neck musculature. The protective buttressing hypothesis is also consistent with observations that modern humans can accurately assess a male's strength and fighting ability from facial shape and voice quality."
Quote from: Nebbie on December 25, 2016, 04:13:39 AM
So in regards to the two topics here that OP conflated, yes, the system needs overhaul:
For social fights, I can understand wanting to punch someone and ending up with an all-out brawl.
What I can't understand is that noone tries to stop it and neither party stops until the other is unconscious.
I've had 7 brawls in my new colony in A16 (even using 3 kind colonists with prepare carefully...apparently the recruits are jerks).
Not one brawl resulted in a colonist being "downed" - every brawl ended with both pawns walking off to the hospital under their own power.
That aspect of the system, at the very least is "fixed" - some fights probably do go until one side is downed, some might even still go to death (really don't see this...since social fights have been implemented, I have NEVER had a colonist be killed in a fight where a painstopper wasn't present), but they don't HAVE to...I have 7 examples of proof that, at least in A16, it is POSSIBLE for a social brawl to end in perfect consciousness on both sides.
What was their melee skill like? I don't know if melee skill improves defense against melee attack. But regardless, a high melee skill pawn is more likely to beat down another, and I imagine if the other has low skill it's even more likely.
Also, don't forget that you can manually draft your pawns and have them beat down the useless pawn who started a fight with your lead crafter :)
Quote from: Limdood on December 25, 2016, 12:56:50 PMQuote from: Nebbie on December 25, 2016, 04:13:39 AMFor social fights, I can understand wanting to punch someone and ending up with an all-out brawl.
What I can't understand is that noone tries to stop it and neither party stops until the other is unconscious.
I've had 7 brawls in my new colony in A16. Not one brawl resulted in a colonist being "downed" - every brawl ended with both pawns walking off to the hospital under their own power. That aspect of the system, at the very least is "fixed" - some fights probably do go until one side is downed, some might even still go to death, but they don't HAVE to...I have 7 examples of proof that, at least in A16, it is POSSIBLE for a social brawl to end in perfect consciousness on both sides.
Confirmed, I've seen plenty of fights where the combatants will just slug each other a few times, then go about their business with an angry gleam in their eyes.
Actually, I get that result in A15 most of the time (both combatants head to the clinic for healing).