When a pawn is in a mental state, unless it's one of the most severe states, they should still eat, seek safe temperature if necessary, sleep. Then they can continue their tantrum. Too often when a colonist has any mental break it results in 'starvation' and 'exhaustion', which just leads to more mental breaks but for completely bogus reasons. I mean someone is angry because he starved in a colony full of food. The side effects of a mental state are often more severe than the mental state. I'm not even complaining they run in front of raiders or wander into hungry bears. But the basic needs are ... basic, even insane people should try to satisfy them if they can do so easily.
One of the telltale signs of mental illness in reality is a degradation in one's ability to take care of yourself.
when life is just too much to take, then life ceases to be a priority (i don't think that mental broken pawns should change at all, except in 2 ways: change pyro, and minor mental breaks, notably daze and sad wander need to last less time, with duration commensurate with the break severity)
Just increase the catharsis bonus.
IMO the broken states simply last too long. If the duration is decreased to say 8-16 hours it'd be much more reasonable.
Quote from: Boston on March 06, 2017, 09:59:03 PM
One of the telltale signs of mental illness in reality is a degradation in one's ability to take care of yourself.
But there's a difference between actual mental illness and a colonist throwing a tantrum because he/she ate without a table.
Quote from: Eric on March 07, 2017, 08:30:19 AM
Quote from: Boston on March 06, 2017, 09:59:03 PM
One of the telltale signs of mental illness in reality is a degradation in one's ability to take care of yourself.
But there's a difference between actual mental illness and a colonist throwing a tantrum because he/she ate without a table.
which doesn't happen....unless you have a too smart, very neurotic, volatile pawn.
mental breaks are the combination of several things all coming together. It doesn't say "Redfields has suffered a mental break and is wandering dazed just because he ate without a table"
it says "Redfields has suffered a mental break and is wandering dazed.
last straw: ate without table"
Mental break effects are fine. Mental break actions within a given type are fine. Mental break duration is fine EXCEPT for minor mental breaks, specifically dazed and sad wander.
I think it makes perfect sense to have mental breaks that involve personal neglect to the point of starvation or exhaustion. But when a pawn collapses from exhaustion, that should end the mental break.
Also, I've seen a pawn end a break, get "Catharsis", then break again before their mood could incorporate the +20 - basically being angry because they had chosen to starve themselves in a fortress full of food, and instead of eating, act on their anger by... starving themselves again. This shouldn't happen; it's just bonkers. I think an already-starving pawn that has a mental break when food is available should never do a dazed or sad wander. Food binge should be the most likely, and maybe there should be a lesser version of it where they would just eat one meal and not get catharsis.
Or, Lose their shit because they got the plague and they are too good to clean their own room. So they go on a mental break binge eating while their plague just gets worse and worse until they die.
My point is that first they throw a tantrum because they're mad at something, second they blame others for not eating and not sleeping. If their mental state ends far from home, they have a good chance of getting another fit for bullshit reasons. You really hope they just drop from exhaustion, but then they're mad for sleeping outside and in cold.
What happened to "Catharsis" ? I think catharsis should be expanded to clear at least some bad moods.
Quote from: BetaSpectre on March 07, 2017, 02:09:52 AM
IMO the broken states simply last too long. If the duration is decreased to say 8-16 hours it'd be much more reasonable.
In reality there are doctors who can take one down and force him into a bed and stay there so he can be taken care of.
Your argument is invalid.
Doctors have the advantage of medicine to sedate people on a mental break.
Actually it'd be really cool if your doctor skill could knock out a broken colonist. Obviously they would need to be non hostile to get needled or you'd just be beating them down like anyone else.
Quote from: bobucles on March 08, 2017, 09:43:38 AM
Doctors have the advantage of medicine to sedate people on a mental break.
Actually it'd be really cool if your doctor skill could knock out a broken colonist. Obviously they would need to be non hostile to get needled or you'd just be beating them down like anyone else.
which is already perfectly simulated by the arrest function...you're forcing their behavior against their will....either they'll grudgingly go along (they get arrested, they get another big mood penalty for being arrested, which may just prolong the issue) or they resist (and go berserk). Doctor sedation of minor break patients would have almost exactly the same effect....sure they'll be asleep instead of captured, but you'd still risk a berserk break and you would still have a huge, long negative mood from being drugged against your will.
Hmm, actually doctors can administer yayo and similar stuff, so maybe that's what it's for ?
or let a pawn intervene. not an arrest, but a forced bed-rest.
It should depend on the break...but this thread makes me think my suggestion for short and long term mood would be a good solution to this as well.
Quote from: gratua on March 08, 2017, 04:00:41 PM
or let a pawn intervene. not an arrest, but a forced bed-rest.
and how is that different? its forced detention....whether confined to a room or unconsciousness....if anything, i think the threat of sedation is SIGNIFICANTLY more severe.
A broken pawn has HAD IT with everything....most especially doing what they are supposed to.
I think you misunderstand how it could happen. Its not so much dragging kicking and screaming in my mind, but more coming up and saying "hey buddy, come on, we need to get you fed" or something.
We do need a non-arrest way of dealing with the break, and talking someone into having a meal or bedrest seems like a good way to go. They might still react by turning berserk, but it should be a much lower chance - you're telling them to have dinner and take a nap, not trying to drag them off to prison. Meanwhile, you wouldn't necessarily regain control of the pawn any sooner; they might eat and rest but still be wandering. It would still help ensure their needs are met when they snap out of it.
Again, though, the reason for their mood should affect how they react. If someone's wandering because they didn't have enough joy and their bedroom is awful, I'd expect them to be fairly compliant. If someone's upset because their mother was killed and butchered, and they're wearing a duster made of her skin, telling them to have a meal made from her meat might just piss them off more.
lets not forget, it would give the social skill a new use, which it SORELY needs.
Reacting to negotiator with berserk is too harsh and I see no advantage over arresting. They should spew insults instead.
I guess it depends what state... For hiding in room, food binging, wandering off, sure...for drug binging, berserking (I imagine you could make talking down them similar to taming vicious animals) I think its plenty reasonable
....Plus, maybe there should be a catastrophic failure chance, like you accidently say something to enrage them and they swing at you
....actually this would be a pretty rad mechanic, combining the social skill, with relationship aspect to determine the success rate.
i'm absolutely against easier or less risky ways to deal with mental breaks. I feel like it would undermine the entire mood system by making significant steps towards trivializing the punishment of the mood system.
I think you misunderstand the issue : Just because one could send someone to feed a colonist, does not mean that its solved without any problems. You STILL have a colonist walking off the job, STILL have colonist at risk for ignoring risks, STILL have to send another to help them (this puts 2 people out of commision for however long it takes) and STILL runs a risk of incredibly risky berserk.
You can have options in mitigating a punishment of a game mechanic, without the punishment being neutralized. And the jailing method, while it works, only creates a loop of bad moods typically, and it doesn't even make sense.
I think you are blowing it out of proportion a bit.
There should be rare occurrences like a colonist calming down because a raccoon nuzzled him.
That would be really cool, and realistic...animals do this...
Quote from: mumblemumble on March 08, 2017, 10:12:52 PM
I think you misunderstand the issue :
I don't misunderstand at all...i think all the suggestions for reducing risk trivialize the punishments and therefore the entire mood system.
Quote
I think you are blowing it out of proportion a bit.
I never said that what I felt was the factual, incontrovertible truth. It is my strongly held opinion.
Negative reviews and opposition to suggested ideas are just as important, if not more so, than support.
Limdood, you seem to like false dichotomies. You act as if everything is either black or white, something is either terrible or awesome, and can't be tuned to be good just enough.
Pretty much this : Trivializing is very subjective, having someone, like a doctor break during a medical emergency is not trivial, it can end with death....Is death now trivial, because what you say?
Rimworld is far more dynamic than you think, and just because someone could feed broken people, doesn't mean mental breaks immediately become a non issue.
Quoteopinion
Opinion or not, your blowing it out of proportion buddy. :) Believe, me, I'm VERY big on spreading ideas, and criticizing them, it makes multiple people dislike me (READ : Want to put my head on a pike) on here. And part of this is, any idea, including disproving ideas, is free to be disproved by anyone else
if this happens, you
1 : take what others have to say and consider it, honestly fully listening to, considering, thinking about what they say, and see if they have even a shred of merit
2 : If you consider what they say, and it does not seem to apply, address their concerns, and if there IS any merit, admit it and move on.
You have not done this, however, so you are looking a little silly, and emotional as well.
I was just thinking about my own personal experience.
At the worst of times, I never cared if I had ate, or what physical pain I was had. I couldn't feel it. I think a mental break is like that, you don't really feel anything. In Rimworld, pawns shouldn't have any feeling about lack of food, or that "old scar" if they are having a mental break either.
Quote from: dragonalumni on March 09, 2017, 01:18:57 PM
I was just thinking about my own personal experience.
At the worst of times, I never cared if I had ate, or what physical pain I was had. I couldn't feel it. I think a mental break is like that, you don't really feel anything. In Rimworld, pawns shouldn't have any feeling about lack of food, or that "old scar" if they are having a mental break either.
That's another approach. The problem seems to be the combination of "choose not to eat" and "complain about hunger". Most of us are trying to find ways to get rid of the first component, and here's a simple suggestion to remove the second instead.
Basically, if a pawn is wandering around hungry when there's food available, it's because they don't care about their physical needs; but if they don't care, it shouldn't affect their mood. They would probably end the break with roughly the same mood they started with, which is obviously still in break range, but not necessarily zero, making it much more likely for catharsis to prevent another immediate break.
I feel that any reduced-risk method to deal with mental breaks makes them unnecessarily easier. Breaks are punishing and avoidable. The punishment already contains further ways to mitigate its danger (dazed and wandering in the killbox when a raid notification happens? go arrest and cross your fingers, or let them die and endeavor to avoid breaks next time).
Players currently put forth monumental effort to AVOID breaks. They build lavish bases, feed dangerous and addictive drugs. When unavoidable or acceptable-risk events put someone at risk of a break, i can wall him in (exploity) or restrict him to the deepest parts of my base (so that when he does break, he is least likely to wander into danger).
If i have failed at preventing both the break and the wander into danger, i can still make one last-ditch effort to arrest, which might turn out ok, or might escalate the situation. For extreme breaks, i lose options, which is balanced by the fact that extreme breaks trigger the most severe punishments and are most avoidable.
If I manage to have my pawn survive his break - which tends to happen using the above methods, I can mitigate the break-spiral by keeping him from resting while he has low mood (the trick here is to have them eat a good meal, drug if necessary, then sleep for about half an in-game hour, then get them up and set to joy...they need time for their mood bar to rise - which only happens while they're awake. You sleep just to remove the totally sleep deprived, then work on other mood modifiers). Alternatively, i can retry step 2: restrict him to the deepest safety of the base and hope he doesn't break again.
Could the mood/break system use some work? sure, but it is already WONDERFULLY balanced for risk/reward/effort - IN MY OPINION. This means that, in my opinion, reduced-risk adjustments to the methods for dealing with breaks will trivialize (and i'm using that word very intentionally) the mood/break system.
In my opinion, i think that the mood/break system needs only 2 minor changes: reduced duration for MINOR breaks (specifically for daze or sad wander, though if one of those breaks is triggered from a major break, the duration is fine), and there should be a cooldown time between breaks, ideally the duration of catharsis (so that there is time for the mood boost of catharsis to take effect - it does seem DESIGNED to prevent the current risk of the endless break cycle), since i shouldn't HAVE to micromanage the pawn's behavior IMMEDIATELY following a break just to let catharsis work the way that it seems to be intended.
My posts reflected my honest opinions, and my words were chosen intentionally to reflect my take on the suggestions. Disagree all you want (I realize most of the people in this thread already do), but please don't tell me what i think, or define MY INTERPRETATION of trivialization right after you say its a subjective term, or tell me that i'm blowing something out of proportion - I think that it would be a mistake of colossal proportions, vastly reducing the effort i need to bother investing in mood to deal with, if reduced-risk methods of break-management were introduced.
Only real difference between arrests and helping them in a friendly way, is the debuff from being arrested, and perhaps the speed.
.....seems like a fair compromise.
I agree the mood needs rework, but perhaps more in the complexity sides. It doesn't seem like theres any definite cause to people being shitty moods, or breaking, they just "are" and "do". It feels like russian roulette, a little, how you have to keep everyone jolly, or they maybe, just maybe, will go on a flake smoking binge and die, not because they had their lover killed, persay, but just because they felt shitty in general... But I put my thoughts on this in the thread about mental health, and nerve, already.
I don't have a problem with breaks in terms of balance, and I think if any of the suggestions here were implemented there would have to be some countervailing change to keep moods relevant, which could be as simple is increasing the severity or duration of some common negative moodlets.
The things that frustrate me about breaks are that they're sometimes nonsensical, which breaks immersion (e.g. a dazed wanderer collapses from exhaustion in the fridge amid piles of meals, wakes up, goes berserk - last straw: starving), and that they're not very interactive (a pawn does a dazed wander; I make one decision, whether to arrest or not, usually not; and then I ignore them because I can't do anything). Making the break type match the reason better fixes the first issue (e.g. break when hungry -> food binge); offering a peaceful way to deal with breaks fixes the second (is it worth trying to talk them down? who should I use?).
Quote from: Limdood on March 09, 2017, 05:36:14 PM
I feel that any reduced-risk method to deal with mental breaks makes them unnecessarily easier.
The goal isn't to make the game easier. The changes suggested here would make the game easier on their own, sure, but nobody's saying "and don't make any compensating changes to make things harder". We're just not discussing those compensating changes, because it's not the topic.
Quote from: Limdood on March 09, 2017, 05:36:14 PM
In my opinion, i think that the mood/break system needs only 2 minor changes: reduced duration for MINOR breaks (specifically for daze or sad wander, though if one of those breaks is triggered from a major break, the duration is fine), and there should be a cooldown time between breaks, ideally the duration of catharsis (so that there is time for the mood boost of catharsis to take effect - it does seem DESIGNED to prevent the current risk of the endless break cycle), since i shouldn't HAVE to micromanage the pawn's behavior IMMEDIATELY following a break just to let catharsis work the way that it seems to be intended.
A cooldown would indeed fix the problem of "dazed wanderer has a second break before they've had a chance to eat". This would be hacky and immersion-breaking in its own way, and wouldn't make them more interactive. Making the breaks shorter seems purely like a way to make them easier to endure, not more immersive or interactive. Also, according to the wiki (http://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Mood (http://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Mood)), there already is a distinction between the minor break type "Sad wander" (mean time to recovery: 0.3 days) and the major break type "Psychotic wander (daze)" (mean time to recovery: 0.8 days).