I know the idea of baby making has been suggested before and the counter-argument was usually along the lines that the timescale of Rimworld is measured in days, not months or years (like in DF) so having a kid means you have a waste of space for your playthrough as even long games would probably only last a couple of years due to the scale involved.
HOWEVER just as you can now "win" by constructing the spaceship, what if you could "win" by creating a safe enough colony that supports childbearing.
So the idea is that when you start building royal beds the colonists might start cohabitating (marriage/relationships would be nice but optional). A female colonist of child-bearing years might develop the "illness" of pregnancy.
This would increasingly make that colonist less and less productive, would increase their appetite, and most importantly you would have to manage their stress levels.
Imagine as a win condition that you have to keep a single random colonist happy and healthy for 9 straight months. That would be quite the challenge while also fending off raiders and random events etc.
Sure on easy mode or with a strong enough colony you could create your perfect "maternity ward" full of beauitful sculptures etc. but to avoid cabin fever she would HAVE to go outside and if there is an area available outside then you can drop raiders right on her :P
But on the flipside if your colony is strong enough that this is no hassle then you've already won the game, just not by pop-up.
So...yeah. If you can keep a random colonist happy and healthy for 9 months then a popup box saying something along the lines of "the colony has proven to be self-sufficient enough to bring forth the next generation of colonists. Everyone is emboldened by this miracle blah blah blah..."
As for the kid itself it doesn't have to be like the sims but it could just be very basic. The kid is an object that the mom carries around until its say 4. From 4 it has a sprite that can walk around and slowly but surely, say every year another job unlocks. In the beginning it can't do anything but eventually it can clean or flip switches or bring meals to patients and other odd jobs. Say full adulthood and "hauling" unlocked at 16 but again who's actually going to make it that far?
Unless you also implement my chornomographier idea...
I've got 2 thoughts on this.
1. It wouldn't just be "reach X number of kids" for the win conditions. You'd need both a set population level and a healthy level of births to deaths. That way the colony's actually growing and sustaining itself. The game would need to record the number of colonists lost in a certain period as well as the number added, then use those to find the growth rate.
2. One solution to the time issue might be cloning pods. Put the cost of the cloning pod on par with ship parts (like the cryosleep pods). The pod acts as a workstation, and converts food (nutrient paste?) and maybe some other resources into a new colonist. If the game can be set up to add new random colonists on command then it'd be possible. What might be tricky would be making it so that the player can select a colonist that the "offspring" will be based on, keeping his/her last name. I got the idea after recently watching the episode of Dr. Who "the doctor's daughter" with the clone armies fighting each other.
praguepride,
I think that it would be incredibly tedious to have to manage a single colonist's mood for nine month at the current time scale. Having two children myself, I know how. . . interesting, for the sake of neutrality, women are when they are pregnant.
I would much rather relationships, pregnancy, and children be meaningful. In order for this to happen, I think the timescale would have to be altered. In other threads I have proposed that the time scale be altered so that each game day represented three months.
Not only would it make children viable for our colonists and the (possible) simulation of npc factions populations, but it would also mesh well with the length of time mining and construction projects would take without the arsenal of heavy machinery that we have in real life.
In my experience with other games, The Guild series chief among them, it doesn't detract from immersive play one bit. It simply serves to allow all facets of gameplay to meld together in a realistic way; the day night cycle contributing to events and actions that can only take place during certain times, while allowing players to witness the full range of experiences in a character's lifespan.
Another thing I've mentioned elsewhere is that the current ever increasing raid sizes will most likely cease when things like faction diplomacy are fleshed out, as well as when other challenging events are implemented; more things that challenge our communities than perpetual raids by infinite antagonists.
For a more detailed version of my suggestion see here: https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=8122.msg105183#msg105183
Quote from: thenightgaunt on February 26, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
I've got 2 thoughts on this.
1. It wouldn't just be "reach X number of kids" for the win conditions. You'd need both a set population level and a healthy level of births to deaths. That way the colony's actually growing and sustaining itself. The game would need to record the number of colonists lost in a certain period as well as the number added, then use those to find the growth rate.
2. One solution to the time issue might be cloning pods. Put the cost of the cloning pod on par with ship parts (like the cryosleep pods). The pod acts as a workstation, and converts food (nutrient paste?) and maybe some other resources into a new colonist. If the game can be set up to add new random colonists on command then it'd be possible. What might be tricky would be making it so that the player can select a colonist that the "offspring" will be based on, keeping his/her last name. I got the idea after recently watching the episode of Dr. Who "the doctor's daughter" with the clone armies fighting each other.
thenightgaunt,
I think what Ive written covers my thoughts on your first point, but I'd like to chime in on your second point. I think cloning should be less personal than that. The "Vatgrown" backgrounds give a good feel for it, I think. If you invest in cloning, it should produce, in the end, a character with a "Vatgrown X" background. This would simply determine what skills have experience boosts, and which skills are disabled (if any).
I think it is important to note that while I imagine at some point you could clone someone perfectly, so the clone has all the knowledge of the original person, It is somewhat of a stretch. Especially since anything you do where you rely on your senses or physical abilities would still require the same level of dedication and practice as the original person had in life. You could clone a master swordsman but his clone wouldn't have the muscle memory, physical fitness, or action-sense response of the original because they are all trained qualities.
I think the way that vatgrown should work is that they are simply genetically "perfect". They are engineered to not have the flaws that are associated with people born naturally. Ie: people who get alzheimer's and cancer from genetics. They are immune to most of the small things. What differentiates a Vatgrown Soldier from a Vatgrown Sexslave would be what they are indoctrinated to be. In most circumstances, I imagine they were be made for a purpose and would only serve that purpose. Our colonist would, however, allow vatgrown people to develop more or less naturally.
Though in regards to passions, for increased experience gain, I would imagine the genes could be manipulated to make them developmentally predisposed towards certain tasks and behaviors.
Cheers,
Michael
I am 100% behind the argument. All the backstory of the game strongly implies that the rest of the universe isn't exactly a utopia. By the time the colony has the infrastructure to get off the planet, what's the point? The spaceship building just feels like a quickie alpha endgame feature.
I don't agree with the managing stress levels. The challenge shouldn't be any more complicated than having the offspring survive to maturity. Running a colony in which 25% of it's members can't take care of themselves is enough for this game.
I'm completely fine with the game not having a win condition, I kind of ignore the space ship thing anyway
Minimum viable populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
Quoteis a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild. This term is used in the fields of biology, ecology, and conservation biology. More specifically, MVP is the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity.
(...)
Minimum viable population is usually estimated as the population size necessary to ensure between 90 and 95 percent probability of survival between 100 to 1,000 years into the future. The MVP can be estimated using computer simulations for population viability analyses (PVA). PVA models populations using demographic and environmental information to project future population dynamics. The probability assigned to a PVA is arrived at after repeating the environmental simulation thousands of times.
For example, for a theoretical simulation of a population of fifty giant pandas in which the simulated population goes completely extinct, thirty out of one hundred stochastic simulations projected one hundred years into the future are not viable. Causes of extinction in the simulation may include inbreeding depression, natural disaster, or climate change. Extinction occurring in thirty out of one hundred runs would give a survival probability of seventy percent. In the same simulation with a starting population of sixty pandas, the panda population may only become extinct in four of the hundred runs, resulting in a survival probability of 96 percent. In this case the minimum viable population that satisfies the 90 to 95 percent probability for survival is between 50 and 60 pandas. (These figures have been invented for the purpose of this example.)
What's the minimum viable population for humans ? I've seen various numbers thrown around, but they were between 300 and 1000.
Quote from: b0rsuk on February 28, 2015, 09:33:39 AM
What's the minimum viable population for humans ? I've seen various numbers thrown around, but they were between 300 and 1000.
I don't have a reference, but I studied Anthropology ages ago, and the standard viable population for all primates is 35 - 300 per troup.
Above 300 individuals can no longer maintain social ties and the troupes tend to split off.
35 is just enough individuals to ensure genetic diversity and avoid problems with inbreeding, although in a game where fresh genergenetic stock can literally fall from the sky, a lower limit isn't an issue.
Data from SF story suggest you need 500 for short term survival, and 10 000 for long therm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization#Population_size
Wikipedia say 150 for 80 generation/2000 years, or 2 persons with huge stock of embryo (hick!).
Anyway, the Rimworlds aren't exactly desert considering the infinite wave of tribal and pirate you would think they inhabit Megalopolis.
But nevermind, amongst the possible "win condition" I really don't like this "children" suggestion for the same reason that make animals husbandry absurd : Games never last long enough for a child to grow up (pregnancy at all would take 40% of my typical game duration)
Not only the "child win condition" would barely be the announcement that ONE kid is born, but this is hardly the sort of thing you should have control of. It's one thing to plan toward building a spaceship, it's another to coerce/have random colonist into starting a family.
A more logical idea to convey the idea of the start of a new civilization would be a "Diplomatic Victory".
In short : Pacify and unite all tribes/village (then build in common an huge mothership to find your homeworl... wait, wrong game)
Quote from: Kegereneku on February 28, 2015, 07:10:59 PM
But nevermind, amongst the possible "win condition" I really don't like this "children" suggestion for the same reason that make animals husbandry absurd : Games never last long enough for a child to grow up (pregnancy at all would take 40% of my typical game duration)
But it's still alpha and the framework is there for a more long-term game. The only reason games don't last long is because the RNG has nothing better to do than spam ever growing waves of enemies at the colony. This is the perfect time to bring something like this up before some design aspect gets set in stone that makes a long term colony impossible.
I like the idea of Rimworld more than other sandboxes like Stonehearth or Banished because the individual pawns are way more fleshed out and have more personality than faceless character models or townies that only exist as classes that only fill one role, it would be a shame if a game that's better at having the audience connect to their citizens also ends up with a smaller overall scope.
That do not make it less absurd. I shouldn't even be arguing so much against it to not make it sound even plausible.
ALPHA or not, we are talking of changing the game to another one, not expanding it.
Example : The key module of the game is the Narrator and Tales system. Even a 10 year long game wouldn't be enough for -say- a cloned-child to not look out of place. I also know some player aim for 100 colonist but the game is not suited for that.
Hence why I suggested a "Diplomacy Win" would make more sense in our Faction-rich context to convey the beginning of a real civilization.
Now, even limiting ourself to the concept of "child", we have to take the full scope of all it imply (cloning/neurotrainer or not) to see if that's even bring anything good to the game : VERY long game, training device and a hell lot of SIMS-like management, micro-managing what the colonist "want", child getting killed by bandit raid...
I think we should either abandon the idea of go for something completely abstract. (like say, having spaceship traveler willingly coming to live in our "colony")
About Banished:
You forget that it is far simpler, faster spaced and it CHEAT with character age.
- Town size start at 20 and go up to more than 100
- Building = House/Job/storage
- Characters jobs are 100% interchangeable
- No attack wave, barely any event
- Realistically you should also be having incest problem if you don't bring new blood soon enough
I know it can look easy from outside because a few mechanic look like the same but Banished have been created for that. Rimworld don't have the layout to make the concept really "good".
Quote from: Vagabond on February 27, 2015, 12:36:37 AM
I think what Ive written covers my thoughts on your first point, but I'd like to chime in on your second point. I think cloning should be less personal than that. The "Vatgrown" backgrounds give a good feel for it, I think. If you invest in cloning, it should produce, in the end, a character with a "Vatgrown X" background. This would simply determine what skills have experience boosts, and which skills are disabled (if any).
I think it is important to note that while I imagine at some point you could clone someone perfectly, so the clone has all the knowledge of the original person, It is somewhat of a stretch. Especially since anything you do where you rely on your senses or physical abilities would still require the same level of dedication and practice as the original person had in life. You could clone a master swordsman but his clone wouldn't have the muscle memory, physical fitness, or action-sense response of the original because they are all trained qualities.
I think the way that vatgrown should work is that they are simply genetically "perfect". They are engineered to not have the flaws that are associated with people born naturally. Ie: people who get alzheimer's and cancer from genetics. They are immune to most of the small things. What differentiates a Vatgrown Soldier from a Vatgrown Sexslave would be what they are indoctrinated to be. In most circumstances, I imagine they were be made for a purpose and would only serve that purpose. Our colonist would, however, allow vatgrown people to develop more or less naturally.
Though in regards to passions, for increased experience gain, I would imagine the genes could be manipulated to make them developmentally predisposed towards certain tasks and behaviors.
Cheers,
Michael
You make some interesting points here. I like the idea of a "vatgrown" trait assigned to any colonists born from the cloning tanks. And a randomizing aspect to it would be interesting as well. I mean these are supposed to be colonists heading to a nicer world right? Maybe 2 research items: cloning vats and genetic library? The colonists' ship had an extensive genetic library that got jettisoned into orbit as they crashed so research is needed to connect remotely to the library. That way any clones are based on the library's collection of human samples.
And that's the reason why any clones are randomized and not offspring or copies of existing colonists.
The trick would be the C# coding to create a random NPC that's allied with the colonists, and to add that "vatborn" trait to both the game and the NPC. I'm not the best at C# though.
So what would be the effect of the "vatgrown" trait, and should that then count towards any sort of "children as win condition" as mentioned in the original post? Perhaps a more accurate definition might be population size or sustainability as a win condition?
Though Children would be interesting as well. From the op, the idea could work in either case. "Children" would be useless colonists, only eating and with zero skills (given how slow the game's time scale is).
Hello,
Reading all the posts since I last replied here has me itching my head. I suppose I should stop writing walls of text and maybe my posts will get read and digested; either that, or my ideas are so revolting that they do not warrent further discussion...
I say this because, well... Almost every argument against children has been "not enough time". . . So here is my suggestion to remedy that is as few words as possible:
abstract time scale
Now to define in as few words as possible: 1 game day = 1 or 3 months
Why one or three? The answer in as few words as possible:
1 mo. best for increased season exp. 3 mo. Best 4 quicker life span.
Why?
1 mo. = 9d pregnancy; 216d = time 4 child 2 turn 18; Each month w/ associated weather playable 4 a day
What about the three month option?
3 mo. = 3d pregnancy; 72d = time 4 child 2 turn 18; 4 location w/ all 4 seasons, you can play each season for 1d.
Wait! Theres more!
A slider can be implemented that allows the user to adjust, for themselves, the ratio of game days to abstract time.
E.g: 1:1 would make 24 game hours equal one game day. 1:2 would make 24 game hours equal two game days, ect.
Now. . . If the user chooses to use this responsibly, it wouldn't detract from immersion, it would enhance it. My reasoning for this is that in game, things happen really fast. The time to make an item. The time to mine out a cave complex. The time to erect a building with roof, the latter happening instantly for gameplay purposes (which I agree with. It'd be annoying trying to hunt down each tile keeping me from designating a building as enclosed). Which is why I suggest 1 or three months as the golden points between maintaining immersion and allowing children to be meaningful.
My stance on children has not change in the least bit. I don't understand why it's so controversial. Making relationships between colonists meaningful and both beneficial and detrimental for story purposes has to be something that entices people whom are as facinated by the idea of an AI gamemaster nudging the story along.
Not only will we have children, but we could possible strike up a jealousy between the guy whom wanted to be with that female colonist, but she developed a relationship with another guy. There are just so many possibilities. I'd like as many options as possible to make this the coolest colony sim out there, with options for other people to play the game as they want.
If you don't want kids to be part of your game and want to play out each day hour by hour, then so be it. You can have the colonist-relationship stuff; hell, you can still have couples. But instead of building a double bed when the colonist moodlet pops up saying they want to move in together, you can build two seperate beds in the same living space to make them just as happy. Call it safe sex measures.
Suppose it still turned out a wall... Crap. Well, at least the points are highlighted, don't judge me! >.>;
Cheers,
Michael
Regarding the controversy issue. I think that for some there are some who want a game that is more realistic (so to speak) and want the in-game timescale to represent that. Then there may be others who like the idea of it being a short lived colony aimed at getting off-world. And then there might be others who just don't like games that introduce mechanics for having offspring for whatever reasons. So there are a lot of places to approach the issue from.
For me, I like the idea of expanding on concepts of community and colony growth. I'd rather go for some sort of conquest/sustainability/etc victory than just a "get off planet" victory. Maybe I'm playing the wrong game for that desire, but I like Rimworld either way. So it's not going to kill me if it went one way or the other.
One story-oriented solution for the time jumping (per Vagabond's fast grow model there) could be the colonists research some sort of sci-fi fast growth mcguffin. It worked for movies like Pandorum (among many many others) and it could work here as an excuse for fast gestation and fast development.
I don't really see the need for fast growth. Rimworld is about struggle.
What's more fun, a quick, no hassle way to get new colonists?
Or
Months of one your colonists being sick and impaired at their job then going through a really dangerous 'operation' of giving birth with a high chance of dying, followed by now having a baby who can't contribute to the colony but needs feeding and needs looking after so eats your food and takes up your wardens valuable time.
Fastgrowth or vat clones would take all the fun out of it, real length pregnancy would add more fun, and real-aging babies even more.
Why set 18 as the magical adulthood point? 14 should be more than old enough to handle all colony tasks, even medicine with the caveat that they'll be starting at 0 skill points. I'd go so far as to argue being able to draft them that young.
Harvesting and cleaning can probably be done as young as 8, maybe with efficiency or time penalties.
Quote from: Gennadios on March 01, 2015, 10:20:36 PM
Why set 18 as the magical adulthood point? 14 should be more than old enough to handle all colony tasks, even medicine with the caveat that they'll be starting at 0 skill points. I'd go so far as to argue being able to draft them that young.
Harvesting and cleaning can probably be done as young as 8, maybe with efficiency or time penalties.
Gennadios,
In the third post of this thread I linked one of my replies from another thread:
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=8122.msg105183#msg105183
Here are my ideas for each life stage (names of them are just placeholders, but I feel I cover each important milestone in development):
Quote##Time and Aging##
Time: Each day could abstractly represent three months, given real life times on construction and production. The length of a day might need adjusting. A 24 hour clock could have somewhere around 30 seconds to a minute being the length of a game hour. Leasure time would fit in here, basically the way it worked in diggles was when you clicked on a dwarf it had a little clock in the corner with two moveable hands. The hands would be manipulated to decide what hour they start work and what hour they end work. During the time they were off the clock, they would build relationships, eat, sleep, and do little fun things.
Aging: Basically there would be eight age categories, each with interesting aspects. The base time is the standard length of time they are in that age group, the extra day is a "late development" factor. For example: Crawlers have a base time of one day. So they will always be in that stage for at least one day. After that day, the game will "roll" with a 25% chance at a second day. If they get that second day, the third day will be rolled with a 15% chance of them getting it; alternatively it could simply be an RNG, where it will just pick a number from one to three.
Aging could look like this:
Infant
-Infants are unable to do anything; they simply stay swaddled on their mother, which precludes the mother from certain activities.
-Base time, two days. One extra day possible at: 25% chance (Alternative: RNG, 1-2)
Crawler
-Crawlers do nothing but get under other colonist's feet. X% chance of a colonist tripping over a crawler when passing.
-New bed type: Childrens bed. Upon being claimed by a crawler it's graphic switches to a crib
-Base time, one day. Two extra days possible at: 25/15% chances. (Alternative: RNG, 1-3)
Walker
-Walkers tend to wander off from the home-zone, possibly endangering themselves.
-25% chance to do a light hauling task.
-Claimed by changes graphic to look like a toddler's bed.
-Base time, five days. Four extra days possible at: 25/20/15/10% chances. (Alternative: RNG 5-9)
Talker
-Talkers talk. A lot. X% chance to distract another Colonist from their task.
-50% chance to do a light hauling task.
-Base time, twelve days. Four extra days possible at: 25/20/15/10% chances. (Alternative: RNG, 12-16)
Helper
-Helpers try to emulate the adults. They can do simple tasks like fetching pails of water.
-Can do a light hauling task, and 25% chance to do a medium hauling task.
-claimed bed changes graphic again to look like a smaller version of the colonist bed.
-Base time, twenty days. Eight extra days possible at: 50/45/40/35/30/25/20/15% chances. (Alternative: RNG, 20-28)
Worker
-Workers start really helping the colony.
-Can do light/medium hauling tasks, and 50% chance to do a heavy hauling task.
-Unclaimed from their bed (Workers/breeders/elders can't sleep in children's bed). Can either create a new bed in the parent's house (will get negative moodlet if it's not it's own room/room not big enough) or can be moved out.
-Base time, twenty days. Twelve extra day possible at: 75/70/65/60/55/50/45/40/35/30/25/20% Chances. (Alternative: RNG, 20-32)
Breeder
-Able to marry; Each colonist requires a piece of jewelry. There must be an available Private Quarters with a double bed.
-Married Breeders can have children. Pregnancy lasts 3 days.
-Can do light/medium/heavy hauling tasks.
-Become Elders at two hundred days old.
Elder
-No longer work themselves, but instead "Mentor" other colonists, it increases that colonists skill gain and increases production speed. It is much more effective than the "Aid" feature, which allows two colonists to work on a single task to help a less skilled person benefit from a more skilled worker.
-Has a 75%/50%/25% chance to do a light/medium/heavy hauling task.
-After they are 240 days old, they have an acumulative 5% chance per day to pass away.
Cheers,
Michael
A great idea, but then it would require the implementation of a much more complicated system to cover life cycles. A good final goal needing a first step. So what would the first step be from a development perspective?
I'm thinking that this would involve 2 new systems, and this will be vague as I know a little C# but I'm not sure what's in place already or what could be done.
The first, an NPC (or are they called Pawn's in this game?) spawner. Say a bed for 2 colonists based on the Royal bed (can that fit 2?) using the sprite for 2 colonists sleeping in beds placed next to each other. One side is set to only be used by a male colonist the other only females. So there's your "woohoo bed". If used by a male and female colonist at the same time, it spawns a "pregnancy" illness in the female colonist. On the end of the illness, it spawns a new colonist.
The second, a more complex aging system. This is already partially in place though isn't it? Colonists age and become more susceptible to illness right? It'd just be a case of modding those to suite the characteristics of the ages desired. Children would be tricky though as you'd have to limit the activities that they could do. The early ages could be restricted to a bed and that would simplify matters.
Urgh ! I wish to reformulate again my opinion on why this is a very bad idea. Worse it would really keep us from finding better, more flexible, yet equivalent features.
also mostly because Vagabond's categorization with word like "breeder" irked me to be sincere
Rimworld just isn't shaped right for transgenerational story. It really isn't, this is not only because of time although it would be pretty jarring / brain scratching to pump out a kid to maturity in less than 5 in-game years or 20 seasons.
Rimworld is a tales of day after day struggle narrated for group of less than 10 colonists, never mind 50 as over 30 colonists I'll bet most of us loose track of individual name/traits/background/health, therefore caring less about the "deep characterization" the game is meant for.
Not breaking immersion also goes by not forcing in a features if you have to twist absurdly to do so. Either it fit or you have to accept it don't. Rimworld is hill-suited for endless game.
Other game-mechanic such as skills, research, combat, health, trait, faction relation, resources...etc would have to be modified if not limited specifically to accommodate the possibility of children. (If loosing a colonist wasn't hard enough, a child should be a Reload Save guaranteed).
Lastly I insist again that child would make a meaningless "win condition". It doesn't mark the beginning/end of anything. 100 colonist is too low to perpetuate a species yet is barely significant compared to other factions (cutting down infinite wave to faction of 100-200 persons)
The transition described above being the only things I would consider them relevant for. Else I simply cannot comprehend the in-game interest for them.
Seriously,
We would gain more at discussing actual characterization (including romance of course) within the bound of adulthood. You want Jealousy ? You don't need child for that.
You want to embark on large scale colonization ? You don't need child either for that. Better create a new way of attracting people to your colony, set new colony or other flexible multi-use features.
Quote from: Vagabond on March 02, 2015, 04:11:34 PM
-Married Breeders can have children. Pregnancy lasts 3 days.
Three day pregnancies? Ridiculous. You do realize the game is balanced until day ~300 and has 15 day months. Nine in game month pregnancies would be perfectly reasonable, even for short games, let alone the 5+ year endurance plays.
-Argon
I would only want pregnancy in the game, if it took nine in-game months and had a high risk of killing the mother.
Then resulted in a baby/child that would eat lots and contribute nothing for atleast 12 in game years.
You'd get around the taking super ages to grow up, not by speeding up time or growth rate, but by accepting that kids are a burden in this situation where day-to-day struggle is the name of the game.
And by having kids occasionally turn up as space refugee crashes.
Maybe three life stages
0-4-baby, eats alittle, needs to be carried around
4-12-child, eats alot and will occasionally haul but has a whole heap of autonomous idling tasks/playing/mucking around which have higher priority so will hardly ever haul.
2-∞-Adult, what we have now.
You might not even need to code for transition, the game doesn't generally go that long. They could just be separate pawn types that just always stay what they're created as.
Quote from: Kegereneku on March 02, 2015, 08:34:51 PM
Urgh ! I wish to reformulate again my opinion on why this is a very bad idea. Worse it would really keep us from finding better, more flexible, yet equivalent features.
also mostly because Vagabond's categorization with word like "breeder" irked me to be sincere
Rimworld just isn't shaped right for transgenerational story. It really isn't, this is not only because of time although it would be pretty jarring / brain scratching to pump out a kid to maturity in less than 5 in-game years or 20 seasons.
Rimworld is a tales of day after day struggle narrated for group of less than 10 colonists, never mind 50 as over 30 colonists I'll bet most of us loose track of individual name/traits/background/health, therefore caring less about the "deep characterization" the game is meant for.
Not breaking immersion also goes by not forcing in a features if you have to twist absurdly to do so. Either it fit or you have to accept it don't. Rimworld is hill-suited for endless game.
Other game-mechanic such as skills, research, combat, health, trait, faction relation, resources...etc would have to be modified if not limited specifically to accommodate the possibility of children. (If loosing a colonist wasn't hard enough, a child should be a Reload Save guaranteed).
Lastly I insist again that child would make a meaningless "win condition". It doesn't mark the beginning/end of anything. 100 colonist is too low to perpetuate a species yet is barely significant compared to other factions (cutting down infinite wave to faction of 100-200 persons)
The transition described above being the only things I would consider them relevant for. Else I simply cannot comprehend the in-game interest for them.
Seriously,
We would gain more at discussing actual characterization (including romance of course) within the bound of adulthood. You want Jealousy ? You don't need child for that.
You want to embark on large scale colonization ? You don't need child either for that. Better create a new way of attracting people to your colony, set new colony or other flexible multi-use features.
Kegereneku,
I honestly can't comprehend what you are getting at. Almost every aspect of Rimworld is super accelerated: Plant Growth, Research Speed, Construction Speed, Crafting Speed, Art Speed, Mining Speed, and the list goes on.
If anything, making time abstract will make everything else make sense, including children. I don't understand why you feel the feature will be "forced" or why you think their speeds will need to be altered. The beauty of my suggestion is that (after arduous coding effort) be plopped right into the game, as far as I can tell. I can't think of any systems it would disrupt.
Furthermore, I have suggested that time be alterable by players during the creation process on a few metrics: Amount of real life time per game hour, amount of game hours per game day, and amount of abstract days per game day. Default values will exist, but the ratios would be easily adjusted.
In this, you can adjust how you want time to flow: Less realistically (as it is now) or more realistically (as I suggest).
You can't base the ability of a colony to sustain a population by the population it starts with, as there are ways to get more colonists to join your colony, and more than likely even more (due to demand of things like bars and such for that specific purpose) ways will come.
I'm sorry, but the only headscratching I'm doing is over your post, man. Your arguments make no sense to me. Scratch that, there is one thing that does make sense to me; Children as a victory condition isn't appealing. I agree. But I'm of the opinion that Rimworld should be a sandbox where we can determine the reasons and goals of our colony, with an AI storyteller to keep us on our toes.
P.S. Kegereneku, can you PM me your reasons for the word "breeder" being so offensive? As I mentioned in my post, they were just words used as placeholders to get the idea out there- nothing else. Having two kids, I'm quite the accomplished breeder. Hehe.
Quote from: Argon on March 02, 2015, 11:12:51 PM
Quote from: Vagabond on March 02, 2015, 04:11:34 PM
-Married Breeders can have children. Pregnancy lasts 3 days.
Three day pregnancies? Ridiculous. You do realize the game is balanced until day ~300 and has 15 day months. Nine in game month pregnancies would be perfectly reasonable, even for short games, let alone the 5+ year endurance plays.
-Argon
Argon,
In my suggestion time would be abstract in that one game day will represent three months. So in essence, pregnancies will be nine months long.
There are many instances of abstract time in games. My favorite being The Guild II. In which a single day represents a year (or four months, depending on the option you choose).
As I mentioned above, think about the super accelerated speeds at which things happen in game and you can come to two conclusions:
1) In order to improve immersion everything would have to be slowed down to a snail's pace in which it would take real life days to get things done.
2) You could make time abstract so that researching geothermal energy takes months, rather than days. Or mining out a cave complex to install walls, room, and power will take years rather than weeks. Mind you, the time is abstract. One in game day being representative of three in game months.
I would wager that the second option is more appealing, because it conforms to both gameplay and realism. Where as the first one would be horrible for gameplay. The current set up is only good for gameplay. Which is why I think the second option seems the most attractive, and why I suggested it.
Quote from: absentminded on March 02, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
I would only want pregnancy in the game, if it took nine in-game months and had a high risk of killing the mother.
Then resulted in a baby/child that would eat lots and contribute nothing for atleast 12 in game years.
You'd get around the taking super ages to grow up, not by speeding up time or growth rate, but by accepting that kids are a burden in this situation where day-to-day struggle is the name of the game.
And by having kids occasionally turn up as space refugee crashes.
Maybe three life stages
0-4-baby, eats alittle, needs to be carried around
4-12-child, eats alot and will occasionally haul but has a whole heap of autonomous idling tasks/playing/mucking around which have higher priority so will hardly ever haul.
2-∞-Adult, what we have now.
You might not even need to code for transition, the game doesn't generally go that long. They could just be separate pawn types that just always stay what they're created as.
absentminded,
Because the ability to harvest and replace most bodies parts in game with grafted ones from other bodies or artificial (sometimes high tech) versions would mean that pregnancy would be a high risk thing, right?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but that makes no sense.
Cheers,
Michael
Meh, no need to PM for that, I simply don't like using the word breeder when talking of expectedly sentient human being with aspiration and dream, you know, the thing we should be focusing on rather than making them nameless breeder.
It just motivated me to write another river of text.
That aside, you are taking the subject from the point of view of realism. But this isn't the only problem. You could pretend one need to be adult to travel in Cryptosleep pod and justify the whole lack of child/abstinence realistically.
Rimworld would need a major redesign even in its alpha state to fit what is not a trivial addition to the game, such feature would be better as a TC mods.
I'm not surprised you defend a endless sandbox, in my opinion it's kind of like a cancer nowadays "you must be a infinite-sandbox or else you ain't doing the best" regardless if originally you planned to have carefully balanced game phase with small but interesting population leading to several ending making riveting tales... and used a finite sandbox environment to that mean.
(Not that I know precisely how far Tynan want to go, but I bought Rimworld because it has a end and the Storytellers are not described as simple dynamic-difficulty system)
I do know of the "Game is already abstracting plant growth time" lines of arguments. Again child would only fit if the game was shaped for transgeneration game, like Banished, where it is a major gameplay imperative to care about that, or game like SIMS although I grew to dislike the license precisely because it tried anything to be relevant again.
But back on subject. Yes the game abstract plant growth, research...etc, that's the best argument I see in favor but it's not enough. The same game-logic also make plantation less productive than they should be, make you research no-brainer things, lack many events, more natural danger, lack a fully developed tech-tree and other game mechanic like Diplomacy and is still working on characterization.
All will certainly follow major rebalancing anyway.
On this, remember when I talked of other game-mechanic that would need modifying ?
If you want to add in kids... and also becoming elder as things that matter, all without making a joke of it, you would have to slow-down/increase research/change mining/skills to accommodate them.
Oh and certainly cut down the rate at which the game tell you colonists birthday.
It's all a question of scale and what it take to justify the whole child game-mechanic.
Let's take 5 years (abstracting copiously) until a child can pull his worth.
- First, just to grow a child you need to make survival more simple and increase optimal population beyond 10 just to increase the likelihood of couple (because you ain't gonna force them are you ?).
- Now you want that child to reach adulthood then matter. You must rebalance game duration to 10 years, more resources to mine, decrease the risk of kids dying. At that point you MUST have already researched everything unless you want to impose child to other players who wanted to play years and reach an ending.
- To have transgeneration consideration, adding not only child but also elder as a gameplay mechanic you would have to increase by say another 10 years. You are not so much playing than timewarping through events, still Phoebe is meant for that kind of game.
- Lastly... if you want a "sustaining colony condition".
As said, child won't make a difference. You will need outside blood and a least 150 unrelated colonists for short-time survival. At that point you should be abstracting the children mechanic as well.
Either through a "Diplomacy End" or a "Colony End" for reaching a state at which point it should be clear you won the game and will just struggle with its limit.
A last note on your suggestion to "allow player to decide of how much time is abstracted" : it enter precisely in the "twisting idea to absurdity until it fit" case I mentioned and I wish I shouldn't have to explain why : You are suggesting to break the link between simulated-event and a game-mechanic just to justify a game mechanic that a new player shouldn't have to balance manually.
Next someone will be asking a slider to change day duration, the speed at which crop grow, at which art happen, optional game mechanic... at which point the game will never be complete because of mutually exclusive game-mechanic.
ps: this topic make me think of this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7GAtSIy4-w
Quote from: Kegereneku on March 03, 2015, 07:22:22 AM
Meh, no need to PM for that, I simply don't like using the word breeder when talking of expectedly sentient human being with aspiration and dream, you know, the thing we should be focusing on rather than making them nameless breeder.
It just motivated me to write another river of text.
I assure you that none of that was my intention by using that word. As I said, it was simply a word to describe a life stage. Every suggestion I make is with the intention of enhancing (R.S.S) realism, simulation, and survival aspects of the game. In the case of this particular suggestion, it is just a single part of an overall innitiative to humanize the colonist. If you doubt my words, then look at my other suggestions and posts.
Quote from: Kegereneku on March 03, 2015, 07:22:22 AM
That aside, you are taking the subject from the point of view of realism. But this isn't the only problem. You could pretend one need to be adult to travel in Cryptosleep pod and justify the whole lack of child/abstinence realistically.
Rimworld would need a major redesign even in its alpha state to fit what is not a trivial addition to the game, such feature would be better as a TC mods.
As made obvious by my suggestion, I don't want to pretend or make justifications for this. So clearly I'm biased. However, I believe my suggestion is grounded in my overall goals of increasing R.S.S, without the need to justify or pretend anything, because it makes sense on it's own. More so than the current state of affairs.
Quote from: Kegereneku on March 03, 2015, 07:22:22 AM
I'm not surprised you defend a endless sandbox, in my opinion it's kind of like a cancer nowadays "you must be a infinite-sandbox or else you ain't doing the best" regardless if originally you planned to have carefully balanced game phase with small but interesting population leading to several ending making riveting tales... and used a finite sandbox environment to that mean.
(Not that I know precisely how far Tynan want to go, but I bought Rimworld because it has a end and the Storytellers are not described as simple dynamic-difficulty system)
What... What... and what? I'm sorry, but sandbox or "open world level design" has been around since the 80's. Many of the best games, story wise, are games with open world level design. By design, and with increasing fidelity, they attempt to simulate a living world with the purpose of emergent gameplay. I know you're wounded by the use of breeder, but I'm sensing the same tone with the word sandbox, and it's one thing I will not defend, because it is perhaps one of the best mediums for emergent gameplay and simulation. What exactly do you think the AI Storyteller is? It is an engine for emergent gameplay, like Skyrim's less than perfect Radiant system, or Left 4 Dead's AI Director. I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no arguement on this one.
Quote from: Kegereneku on March 03, 2015, 07:22:22 AM
I do know of the "Game is already abstracting plant growth time" lines of arguments. Again child would only fit if the game was shaped for transgeneration game, like Banished, where it is a major gameplay imperative to care about that, or game like SIMS although I grew to dislike the license precisely because it tried anything to be relevant again.
But back on subject. Yes the game abstract plant growth, research...etc, that's the best argument I see in favor but it's not enough. The same game-logic also make plantation less productive than they should be, make you research no-brainer things, lack many events, more natural danger, lack a fully developed tech-tree and other game mechanic like Diplomacy and is still working on characterization.
All will certainly follow major rebalancing anyway.
For one, you keep throwing around the arguement of the game not being set up to be transgenerational like banished, thus the mere thought of children is moot. Let me argue then that the game isn't set up for complex diplomacy like Civilization or other 4X game, thus the idea of it is horrendous. Wait, I want that too. Hold on.
Of course the game isn't set up to be multi-generational if none of the systems have been implemented yet. However, just because there isn't a shadow of a system present, doesn't mean that it can't be implemented or that it wouldn't fit. Take a real close look at the game. Factor in complex diplomacy, children, enhanced traits (a suggestion thread of mine), an abstract time scale (that allows for speed of gameplay, but realistic passage of time in the meta scale), and there can be no doubt, in my opinion, that the game couldn't be multi-generational. It could tie into so many things; Inherated traits, Simulated npc factions, more realistic colony building.... The list goes on, and not a single system in place would be disrupted. By not disrupted, I mean they can keey their current settings. Ideally, they would be integrated into the whole.
Quote from: Kegereneku on March 03, 2015, 07:22:22 AM
On this, remember when I talked of other game-mechanic that would need modifying ?
If you want to add in kids... and also becoming elder as things that matter, all without making a joke of it, you would have to slow-down/increase research/change mining/skills to accommodate them.
Oh and certainly cut down the rate at which the game tell you colonists birthday.
Why would the current rates need to be altered? They can stay the way they are. My abstract time scale favors the current rates in game, and has them making more sense in regards to the amount of time they actually take.
Quote from: Kegereneku on March 03, 2015, 07:22:22 AM
It's all a question of scale and what it take to justify the whole child game-mechanic.
Let's take 5 years (abstracting copiously) until a child can pull his worth.
- First, just to grow a child you need to make survival more simple and increase optimal population beyond 10 just to increase the likelihood of couple (because you ain't gonna force them are you ?).
- Now you want that child to reach adulthood then matter. You must rebalance game duration to 10 years, more resources to mine, decrease the risk of kids dying. At that point you MUST have already researched everything unless you want to impose child to other players who wanted to play years and reach an ending.
- To have transgeneration consideration, adding not only child but also elder as a gameplay mechanic you would have to increase by say another 10 years. You are not so much playing than timewarping through events, still Phoebe is meant for that kind of game.
- Lastly... if you want a "sustaining colony condition".
As said, child won't make a difference. You will need outside blood and a least 150 unrelated colonists for short-time survival. At that point you should be abstracting the children mechanic as well.
Either through a "Diplomacy End" or a "Colony End" for reaching a state at which point it should be clear you won the game and will just struggle with its limit.
What? Combining my children suggestion with my abstract time scale suggestion it would take ~60-90 days for a colonist to mature physically and mentally to an adult. Thats ~180-270 abstract months. Which is 15 years old to 22 years old. You seem stuck on the sustained population arguement, but the aim of my suggestion isn't to create a sustained population (that isn't the goal in the game as it is now). My suggestions are about realism, simulation, and survival. A small family clan isn't a sustained population, but they brought in outside blood to secure their future. There is enough outside blood to offer options to continue the legacy, however just as the game is now, once all your colonist die, your story is over.
It would be the same in my proposed system. Lose all your colonist and you die. THe difference is you can bolster your population through childbirth (which is needed to offset death from old age). It only adds story elements, it doesn't take them away, so in my book that is a win.
Quote from: Kegereneku on March 03, 2015, 07:22:22 AM
A last note on your suggestion to "allow player to decide of how much time is abstracted" : it enter precisely in the "twisting idea to absurdity until it fit" case I mentioned and I wish I shouldn't have to explain why : You are suggesting to break the link between simulated-event and a game-mechanic just to justify a game mechanic that a new player shouldn't have to balance manually.
Next someone will be asking a slider to change day duration, the speed at which crop grow, at which art happen, optional game mechanic... at which point the game will never be complete because of mutually exclusive game-mechanic.
ps: this topic make me think of this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7GAtSIy4-w
Why not? There are other games that allow you to decide how fast/slow time passes. Why not not add a slider for those things? Whom does it hurt? No one. Who would it make extremely happy at the developer for adding those little options? The ones, like me, who find it astounding that there are developers who let us peek into the brains of their game and adjust things; the developers whom implement it into the game. It is a magical feeling to see all the things the developer allows us to tinker with without modding.
It doesn't hurt anyone, and it only increases the majesty of the game in the eyes of those (many) whom care about things like that. I love options. I'll take all the options I can get hardcoded and in the game already. It's awesome being able to adjust things. It amazes me you are against the idea of being able to do that, because it means a tailored experience.
You mentioned The Sims. My wife plays those games. I know for a fact that they have sliders for growth rate. There are default rates for those whom either don't know the game well enough to tinker, or for those who just don't want to bother. Absolutely no skin off their backs.
I'm sorry, but the only absurd twisting I see are your arguments. I'm starting to think you are trying to troll me. Lol.
Cheers,
Michael
Quote from: Vagabond on March 02, 2015, 04:11:34 PM
In my suggestion time would be abstract in that one game day will represent three months. So in essence, pregnancies will be nine months long.
So by your logic a colonist eats twice every three months? Your logic also states that a colonist should grow from an infant, age, and die within two in game years. Does a two year human lifespan sound utterly ridiculous to anyone but me? Besides if children are to exist as a way to
win the game it should not be easy. Just as a spaceship is not built in a day, a child should not be gestated in three. In order for children to be an effective "win condition" pregnancy should be long, arduous, and risky. It makes for better drama.
Example: "this sculpture shows ________ colonist in her thirty sixth hour of labor screaming in pain, as an incendiary mortar shell falls outside the window."
-Argon
Quote from: Argon on March 03, 2015, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Vagabond on March 02, 2015, 04:11:34 PM
In my suggestion time would be abstract in that one game day will represent three months. So in essence, pregnancies will be nine months long.
So by your logic a colonist eats twice every three months? Your logic also states that a colonist should grow from an infant, age, and die within two in game years. Does a two year human lifespan sound utterly ridiculous to anyone but me? Besides if children are to exist as a way to win the game it should not be easy. Just as a spaceship is not built in a day, a child should not be gestated in three. In order for children to be an effective "win condition" pregnancy should be long, arduous, and risky. It makes for better drama.
Example: "this sculpture shows ________ colonist in her thirty sixth hour of labor screaming in pain, as an incendiary mortar shell falls outside the window."
-Argon
To start, I'd like to point out that as a game Rimworld is not realistic. In contrast it's also not idiotically simple. So we have to draw a line at what is considered acceptable reality vs silliness. This is a game of simplistic, cartoonish construction and mining, and brutal survival against the elements. I think that arguing vehemently about what's too unrealistic or too harshly realistic is beneath us. It's a point that should be made but it might be more reasonable to say "I prefer a more realistic/stylistic style of gameplay". There is nothing wrong with either.
To Argon:
An interesting point. It seems that children might be used as a design element in two ways (at least).
The first as a way to augment the growth of a colony. In this case children grow up fast and develop into productive colonists and the colony expands as a result. This would require faster gestation and growth periods to simulate the life cycle. To that end there are countless sci-fi McGuffins that could be appropriate.
The second is breeding as a way to make the game more difficult. Given the short lifespan of many colonies in this game before a win condition is reached, realistic pregnancy would not strengthen a colony but weaken it. Colonists would become restricted in their actions as they became pregnant (mining is not a safe task for a woman in her 3rd trimester) and infants/children would be resource drains for most of their existence (barring a very long game of course). In that case, breeding would be a way to increase difficulty. Can you build a colony that can not only survive but support a growing population of unproductive colonist babies?
Lastly, yes "breeder" is a loaded term and it can be a distasteful term depending on when and in what context it is used. From what I've seen here I think that we're all mature enough to both recognize that fact and to possibly acknowledge that it can also be a functional and somewhat appropriate term. Human and all life can be designated into periods based on the ability to breed. Infant, breeder, elder for example. And given the topic of the thread and it may be an appropriate and functional term in the design of a system designed to mimic reproduction. If it becomes too loaded and contentious a term then perhaps we could avoid it.
Quote from: Argon on March 03, 2015, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Vagabond on March 02, 2015, 04:11:34 PM
In my suggestion time would be abstract in that one game day will represent three months. So in essence, pregnancies will be nine months long.
So by your logic a colonist eats twice every three months? Your logic also states that a colonist should grow from an infant, age, and die within two in game years. Does a two year human lifespan sound utterly ridiculous to anyone but me? Besides if children are to exist as a way to win the game it should not be easy. Just as a spaceship is not built in a day, a child should not be gestated in three. In order for children to be an effective "win condition" pregnancy should be long, arduous, and risky. It makes for better drama.
Example: "this sculpture shows ________ colonist in her thirty sixth hour of labor screaming in pain, as an incendiary mortar shell falls outside the window."
-Argon
Argon,
Are you intentionally disregarding what I said, or did you just not really read it? My "logic" as you put it, neither states that colonist eat twice every three months, nor that their lifespan is two game years. If that is what you took from my post then I blame the institution in which you acquired your education.
To clarify, just for you: According to my suggestion (not my "logic" as you put it), an infant becomes physically and mentally mature in 60-90 game days. According to the time flow model I suggested, in which one game day represents -
abstractly- three months, this would mean that the time represented would be 180 to 270 months. Which is 15 to 22 years. At 200 days old, which is 600 months (or 50 years old), the colonist becomes and elder, with ever decreasing chances to live through the seasons.
I specifically stated that I didn't support children as a win condition, so I don't know why you bring that up in response to my posts... Furthermore, as modeled above, children are gestated in nine months, since each game day represents three months -
abstractly-. Your space ship analogy makes more sense in my proposed time model, because they take much more time to make than they currently do in game.
You still get to play each season (for areas that support all four seasons). You still get that day to day management feel; but you also get a much more realistic flow of time and progression than you do now. The 'so colonist only get to eat twice every three months' amounts to an eye-roll because out of everything, you choose that to nitpick about. When on every other front, time meshes well.
To reiterate: Time would be abstract. You are only playing "one day" of every "three months", but you get more accurate scaling of time in regards to research, construction, mining, research, growing, and last but no least the suggested aging model. You have to sacrifice watching your colonist eat more than twice in the three month abstract period, though, sorry. It can't be perfect.
I continue to be baffled, but I assure you, the mental exercise is worth it.
Cheers,
Michael
User was warned for this post: inflammatory.
I join thenightgaunt' point on realism, and we can indeed stop talking about breeder. I was rambling around because I do feel forcing children in Rimworld as described give breeder its loaded meaning. But that's just rhetoric and we are no puritan (especially playing Rimworld).
Vagabond :
QuoteWhat... What... and what? I'm sorry, but sandbox or "open world level design" has been around since the 80's. Many of the best games, story wise, are games with open world level design. By design, and with increasing fidelity, they attempt to simulate a living world with the purpose of emergent gameplay. [.................] What exactly do you think the AI Storyteller is? It is an engine for emergent gameplay, like Skyrim's less than perfect Radiant system, or Left 4 Dead's AI Director. I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no arguement on this one.
Sandbox come in different and unequal favor. Finite / Infinite. Both in term of size and playtime.
For clarification assume now that :
- "finite/infinite" refer to the sandbox physical area. (Minecraft being roughly 'infinite' while GTA is finite)
- "End/Endless" refer to the playtime. (Minecraft having been endless for years, while GTA always had a clear End)
Any game have limitation and not only technological limitation. Good developer put limit to themselves over the gameplay they make. This is why Minecraft isn't a story driven RPG/strategy game, why GTA don't have a child-system, why the old
Elite Frontier game didn't have a story-mode
...and why RIMWORLD is not suited for endless game : finite-to-infinite /or end-to-endless sandbox isn't inevitably better...I shouldn't have to explain that !
Note : Oh and please don't play on word with emergent/hybrid game and insult our intelligence, we all know a game can't be everything equally.
You aren't even using emergent gameplay right !Next : "Storyteller" is by definition one that tell a story, a story being defined as finite, a sequence of events. Whether the storyteller must "thread" or "push" the player toward an end (including death) is up to discussion but
you cannot claim Tynan's storyteller (which have ending, credit and a Tales system) are timeless "Dynamic difficulty system", nor claim they are meant/best suited for the endless play YOU want.
QuoteFor one, you keep throwing around the arguement of the game not being set up to be transgenerational like banished, thus the mere thought of children is moot. Let me argue then that the game isn't set up for complex diplomacy like Civilization or other 4X game, thus the idea of it is horrendous. Wait, I want that too. Hold on.
I only used Banished because it was pointed out as an example before and to make you understand you can't have 2 different in one. Forget the Banished, my point still stand that Rimworld isn't shaped to make a worthwhile use of the clearly transgenerational gameplay you suggest. This is not because X did it that Rimworld can do it without
major redesign (as explained everywhere in all my posts).
Aside, Rimworld do have all the base for any sort of diplomacy system.
QuoteIt would be the same in my proposed system. Lose all your colonist and you die. THe difference is you can bolster your population through childbirth (which is needed to offset death from old age). It only adds story elements, it doesn't take them away, so in my book that is a win.
Again : It's all in the scale, reread my explanation.
You would be forcing a
minimum play time of 5 years (with your 60month data) JUST to get one colonist adult... assuming the colonist get busy the very first month. Then if you truly want him to "bolster" your population, you need to add another few years and more colonist, double if you want child to die of old age.
Hence you are talking of a feature already so twisted it look absurd, which only matter for what we consider non-standard population, non-standard game-duration and require a non-negligible amount of Tynan's work for an "minor" features that I doubt a representative-majority is interested with.
QuoteWhy not? There are other games that allow you to decide how fast/slow time passes. Why not not add a slider for those things? Whom does it hurt? No one. Who would it make extremely happy at the developer for adding those little options?
"Other game" do it because they either know what they do or because they didn't and hope the fanbase will cut them some slack. I can easily give you games that are hellish to make playable, with any number of sliders or simply take your own logic to absurdity.
ex : What would it be if the developer of <insert game> let/forced the players to tweak slider(s) of <more complex than it look game mechanic> ?
(Count that plural because if we keep including features with sliders like this one it will go fast)You call me a troll ?
You are the one weaseling your case over "Technically it's possible" neglecting or dismissing the implications & changes needed to make the feature worth its existence, all arguing from your own over-10y-game standard whereas I suggested equivalent alternative.
If you asked me if I wanted a "Red Mars"-like colonization game (novel by Kim Stanley Robinson) with complex character, building and uniting colony over multiple generation and waging/averting local war, the answer would be "yes". If you asked me if I think Rimworld could evolve into it, the answer would be "no, but it's good in its own right"
User was warned for this post: inflammatory
Hello,
Foremost I would like to apologise to both Kegereneku and Argon for anything I might have said that could have been seen as a personal attack. It was uncalled for and ill suited to debate.
Secondly, I do not think any of us will concede to the point of the other. My proposal was just that; I feel it'd work seamlessly. It is something I would like to see (which are what suggestions are in this medium). I know it isn't everyones cup of tea, but the good thing about this is that I am not the one developing this game.
Lastly: Hitler. By Godwin's Law, I lose, and the topic should be locked ;D . Seriously though, I think this topic has ran it's course and no further use can come from it.
Cheers,
Michael
Indeed,
This debate is proving unproductive for both of us and would have probably ended in a flamewar (with actual flame)
You've stated your suggestion, I've brought counterargument.
It's ultimately up to Tynan decide if he can address the concept and how,
So I agree to disagree.
Quote from: Gennadios on March 01, 2015, 10:20:36 PM
Why set 18 as the magical adulthood point? 14 should be more than old enough to handle all colony tasks, even medicine with the caveat that they'll be starting at 0 skill points. I'd go so far as to argue being able to draft them that young.
You already sort of can. Pawns can ALREADY spawn with ages like that, complete with an adult background..."Wait, you have an adult background? You're a kid!".
Quote from: lusername on March 05, 2015, 04:39:39 AM
Quote from: Gennadios on March 01, 2015, 10:20:36 PM
Why set 18 as the magical adulthood point? 14 should be more than old enough to handle all colony tasks, even medicine with the caveat that they'll be starting at 0 skill points. I'd go so far as to argue being able to draft them that young.
You already sort of can. Pawns can ALREADY spawn with ages like that, complete with an adult background..."Wait, you have an adult background? You're a kid!".
Hey, the galaxy is a dark and brutal place. Sometimes a kids gotta do terrible things to survive.
...
Ok now I've got a muppetbabies style Chronicles of Riddick parody running though my head. I think I need a drink. :o
Quote from: praguepride on February 25, 2015, 09:19:17 AM
I know the idea of baby making has been suggested before and the counter-argument was usually along the lines that the timescale of Rimworld is measured in days, not months or years (like in DF) so having a kid means you have a waste of space for your playthrough as even long games would probably only last a couple of years due to the scale involved.
HOWEVER just as you can now "win" by constructing the spaceship, what if you could "win" by creating a safe enough colony that supports childbearing.
So the idea is that when you start building royal beds the colonists might start cohabitating (marriage/relationships would be nice but optional). A female colonist of child-bearing years might develop the "illness" of pregnancy.
This would increasingly make that colonist less and less productive, would increase their appetite, and most importantly you would have to manage their stress levels.
Imagine as a win condition that you have to keep a single random colonist happy and healthy for 9 straight months. That would be quite the challenge while also fending off raiders and random events etc.
Sure on easy mode or with a strong enough colony you could create your perfect "maternity ward" full of beauitful sculptures etc. but to avoid cabin fever she would HAVE to go outside and if there is an area available outside then you can drop raiders right on her :P
But on the flipside if your colony is strong enough that this is no hassle then you've already won the game, just not by pop-up.
So...yeah. If you can keep a random colonist happy and healthy for 9 months then a popup box saying something along the lines of "the colony has proven to be self-sufficient enough to bring forth the next generation of colonists. Everyone is emboldened by this miracle blah blah blah..."
As for the kid itself it doesn't have to be like the sims but it could just be very basic. The kid is an object that the mom carries around until its say 4. From 4 it has a sprite that can walk around and slowly but surely, say every year another job unlocks. In the beginning it can't do anything but eventually it can clean or flip switches or bring meals to patients and other odd jobs. Say full adulthood and "hauling" unlocked at 16 but again who's actually going to make it that far?
Unless you also implement my chornomographier idea...
To be frank I don't get why people are limiting selves to the idea of natural birth; Growth of Human genetic material into Human offspring only requires an organic material that a Zygote can attach and develop off of.
Artificial Organic or even non-organic wombs are completely within the realm of science and could in fact just be a uterus created and manufactured in organ growth laboratories. In-capsuled in a protein and water solution; would allow for the support of fetus to term or in fact even past infancy into early childhood if necessary. Of course...we are dealing with a universe with..glitter worlds...
For intents; with all their medicine it not outside the realm of believing they not only have this technology to allow mother's to avoid having to be pregnant to have a child of their own. But also that they in fact also have it for cloning and even resurrection. Glitterworlds have no been thoroughly explained. In any case; Essentially with this technology you could even manipulate how fast development occurs; allowing you to develop a child at rates unheard of in the natural world for Human offspring anyway.
Conceivably you could accelerate and grow colonists to age 15 within 15 months after a large expense; first would be the relatively massive food to processed organic materials requirements to support such rapid growth. Then the glitter world medicine cost; and you'd have to purchase the associated technology from traders from glitterworlds in order to actually construct such literal Human factories.
So basically tons Food, metals (including uranium and plasteel), energy, proper temperature control, tons of research....and you get this... after you purchase the components....basically it be a multi-step process with three or four chains of actions needed to be completed but essentially let you manufacture people..
Children are known to have big heads relative to their bodies. If a kid's head fits in a hole, you can be sure he can pass through it, much like an octopus can pass through a hole if it's big enough to fit its beak.
Rimworld has a visual style where heads are very big.
Therefore, Rimworld's visual style doesn't support children. You either wouldn't be able to distinguish them (they all have big heads anyway), or their heads would have to be comically large.
Quote from: b0rsuk on March 10, 2015, 07:17:57 AM
Children are known to have big heads relative to their bodies. If a kid's head fits in a hole, you can be sure he can pass through it, much like an octopus can pass through a hole if it's big enough to fit its beak.
Rimworld has a visual style where heads are very big.
Therefore, Rimworld's visual style doesn't support children. You either wouldn't be able to distinguish them (they all have big heads anyway), or their heads would have to be comically large.
Well, you could split the lifespan into 2 categories, infant and walking. Neither would be based on the actual real time development of humans though for the sake of this classification. As an infant, the pawn is represented by a small object that looks like a swaddled baby, and it can only be carried around like an injured pawn or an item. So really i'll sped all it's time in a bed.
When it gets old enough to become a walking pawn, it's replaced with a generic body and it's skills either start out all low or it's actions are artificially limited to simulate childhood (can't fight, can't craft, etc...).
Quote from: b0rsuk on March 10, 2015, 07:17:57 AM
Children are known to have big heads relative to their bodies. If a kid's head fits in a hole, you can be sure he can pass through it, much like an octopus can pass through a hole if it's big enough to fit its beak.
Rimworld has a visual style where heads are very big.
Therefore, Rimworld's visual style doesn't support children. You either wouldn't be able to distinguish them (they all have big heads anyway), or their heads would have to be comically large.
So your logic is that children have to physically come out of an orifice to be born....Yeah that not how the majority of species on this planet or probably any planet produce offspring....
Moreover; Again; Cloning; lots and lots of cloning...