Boom, massive issues solved. As they currently are, we have an animal that nothing hunts (because they would explode), we can't slaughter (because they would explode), we can't really justify hunting unless desperate (because they would explode), and can't keep around the base (because they would explode). This just makes them really unfun to deal with and kinda nonsensical.
I propose that we limit their explosions to damage to a unique body part - the obvious yellow sacs that give them their name - or burning (exception to frostbite, because that'd suck?). At the very least, they'd be safe to slaughter, other animals could hunt them again, and they could have a heart attack right in the middle of your wooden cabin and you'd suffer no ill effects. This way, they can still be justified as kept around to swarm enemies, farmed for meat/sale, and their chemfuel.
"Well, animals would be wary of approaching them, and it'd be dangerous because a fire might start." Animals still eat toxic or dangerous creatures, how else would we get real-world footage of some toad dying after eating a toxic slug, after supposed hundreds of years of evolution. Plus, if colonists can get desperate enough to settle for (and I dread to consider) nutrient paste, unbutchered corpses, and even cannibalism in times of need, I'm sure a wolf wouldn't waste away while a succulent boomalope calf just sat around.
As for burning, I feel like we don't necessarily need to burn directly on their sacs to set them off. Bullets can go-off without a lick of flame reaching powder, so it's probably the same deal with space petrol.
I heard somewhere that the chemicals in their sacs are kept stable only by some processes while they are alive. Whenever they die, these internal reactions become uncontrollable and quickly leading to explosion.
Quote from: wwWraith on February 05, 2018, 06:38:07 PM
I heard somewhere that the chemicals in their sacs are kept stable only by some processes while they are alive. Whenever they die, these internal reactions become uncontrollable and quickly leading to explosion.
I believe that that information is in the fiction primer.
it's actually a real thing.
and really hot bullets? fired from which weapon? pila?
seriously though, the mythbusters shot at gas tanks many times and they never exploded or caught fire. bullets in flesh dont cause sparks. only if the bullet is actually burning (like tracer bullets) will the tank light up.
but even if so. rimworld is fiction. it is science fiction. if the boomratalope dies, it explodes. easy as that.
Quote from: sick puppy on February 06, 2018, 08:58:34 PM
it's actually a real thing.
and really hot bullets? fired from which weapon? pila?
seriously though, the mythbusters shot at gas tanks many times and they never exploded or caught fire. bullets in flesh dont cause sparks. only if the bullet is actually burning (like tracer bullets) will the tank light up.
but even if so. rimworld is fiction. it is science fiction. if the boomratalope dies, it explodes. easy as that.
No need to be so hostile and close-minded there, pal.
Bullets have a lot of kinetic energy, though it was probably my fault for describing a powerful projectile as "hot." At the same rate though, they're really troublesome critters. Shot? Explode. Beaten? Explode. Stabbed? Explode. Peacefully died in it's sleep? Explode. Finding some middle ground between an animal that doesn't explode just by being mildly inconvenienced and still keeping it at a level where it earns the "boom" in it's name.
Also, I'm kinda confused by your points of "it's really a real thing" and "but even if so. rimworld is fiction. it is science fiction." Rimworld isn't a dumb, schlocky game, just look at the effects that hygiene and temperature alone have on your pawns. I just feel that "it's. . . it's like an antelope. . . but it 'splodes" doesn't do the game justice.
While there is nothing in the current version of the fiction primer that says boomalopes explode on death regardless of what caused their death, the recombining chemicals theory makes sense.
Besides, there's an easy solution to boomalopes:
Step 1: use non-flammable materials on the outer walls of your base.
Step 2: have doors(also non-flammable) on the outside of your base.
Congrats. Now boomalopes/boomrats can't get in, and the outside of your base is protected.
Boomalopes and boomrats are there to provide an unexpected challenge that is actually partially based on player decisions, instead of just an ai rolling dice. I don't understand the need to make the game easier in the name of making it 'more realistic'. I especially don't understand the point of making the game easier and less realistic at the same time. The point of Rimworld is to face challenges, and almost everything has a fairly simple, common sense counter.
i try to draft a player to shoot them at a distance then get my peeps to put out the flames if there close to my buildings or let it burn if its out side my stone walls / wood walls with non flame paths in front since rain starts if it burns for awhile if you can tame them you can get them to attack raider attackers good for tight spaces :D
Quote from: kingy10005 on February 07, 2018, 10:41:00 AM
i try to draft a player to shoot them at a distance ...
I just mark them for hunting, it adds to the entertainment :D
Seriously, the AI is mostly reasonable about hunting these now- your guy will finish them off from a respectful distance and dodge the fire to pick up the body. They're only really trouble in a manhunter pack.
Quote from: angleof9 on February 07, 2018, 07:55:45 AM
I don't understand the need to make the game easier in the name of making it 'more realistic'. I especially don't understand the point of making the game easier and less realistic at the same time. The point of Rimworld is to face challenges, and almost everything has a fairly simple, common sense counter.
The game is a mix of realism and fiction. This is fine. The thing is, though, where players have and lose agency. If you shoot a wolf, you have accepted the possibility that all you're doing is pissing it off and it'll tear your throat. You can combat this with more lethal or accurate weapons, armor, more capably trained pawns, or even just making a farm so you have no need for conscious food or textiles. You really only
need to do one of those. The player has the choice on what to do.
Then, there's what you can't control. Chickens, for example. They
need to be fed and
need to be kept at a comfortable temperature. Otherwise, they'll starve or freeze. Keep in mind, however, that bio-engineered Wargs won't even harm their owners if starving, despite being alpha predators designed to kill. They will starve to death rather than harm you, and freeze before destroying property.
And then there's boomalopes.
They have to be properly fed, they have to be properly heated and cooled, they must be kept away from each other so that they don't reproduce and make more bombs with legs, they must be kept from other animals so their death doesn't kill your whole stock, they need a special non-flammable room to live in, you need fire-foam poppers in case the fire from their death spreads along wires, they need to be kept from the rest of the base so that raiders don't have an weak-point in your perimeter to dig through. Oh, and don't worry, if they get old after all you did to keep them alive, they can still have a heart attack and randomly die, causing a chain-reaction with the rest of them.
The most efficient way to keep almost every animal in the game except two is all in one barn that you can just throw food into, and heat with one system. Exceptions apply to animals that lay eggs or produce milk, so that omnivores don't eat those valuable products. Boomalopes however? The smartest way to treat them is in individual cells, away from the rest of your colony, in a flame-proof structure, and giving them each just the right amount of food. Doesn't that seem inconvenient?
Also, fireproof walls are already the best decision for everything. What if you tame them? You let them roam outside, they die to the elements or angry pirates. Inside, death means destruction.
Honestly, the animals in RimWorld are mostly dull now. They are all essentionally the same, differing only by textures and some numbers. You could make the same successful colonies if there were only 3-5 species at all (1 for eggs, 1 for milk, 1 for wool, 1 for combat, 1 for hauling - and these criteria could be combined).
But the boomies are unique and that's what makes them interesting. They are intended to provide some extra challenge, and if you want to use them, you should make some more efforts keeping more things in mind. But you are not forced and there are many ways to just ignore them.
@call me arty: at this point you just make it seem as if you had an issue with fun. (also, how is all what you described not influencable? seems like perfectly influencable, just like hunting)
if you dont like the danger of having them as pets, sell them. you can shoot them from afar aswell, as if they werent your own. you can wait for it to rain to go on boomratalope hunt.
if you wanna keep some for chemfuel production, either make sure they dont reproduce by only having males or only females, or keep them all in a stone barn and feed them regularly, or just live with the danger (which is my choice) or all of the above. it really isnt that hard.
and just like the poster before me pointed out, they are the most interesting kind of animal in the game. second place goes to thrumbos, third place to the insects probably. then maybe the wargs, rhinos and elephants.
if stuff is fun, it tends to be good. (for games)
Quote from: wwWraith on February 07, 2018, 04:56:38 PM
But the boomies are unique and that's what makes them interesting. They are intended to provide some extra challenge, and if you want to use them, you should make some more efforts keeping more things in mind. But you are not forced and there are many ways to just ignore them.
Quote from: sick puppy on February 08, 2018, 09:52:40 AM
@call me arty: at this point you just make it seem as if you had an issue with fun. (also, how is all what you described not influencable? seems like perfectly influencable, just like hunting)
if stuff is fun, it tends to be good. (for games)
The issue I have with the boom-critters isn't that they're too fun or unique. The issue I have is that they're difficult to handle to the point of un-fun. Having some unique, odd-looking critters around is fine, they're a pretty interesting combat animal too, it's just that the penalties for any mistake is too harsh. Once again, you fail to keep a pig, thrumbo, warg, or even (with mods) a Tyrannosaurus Rex safe?They die. You lose their utility and help to the colony. Boomers have a penalty, yes, but it's a steep one that applies to too much. I would absolutely be fine with the penalty of explosion for roasting them alive or letting them get shot causing an explosion, but butchering them causing that? When one randomly goes manhunter and attacks one of my pawns? What am I supposed to do then,
let my colonist get beaten to death while they have a perfectly good knife or mace in their hand? Well, I better, otherwise I'll get to deal with burns instead of bruises!
They're special, sure, but exploding for every damn reason isn't fun, it's not enjoyable. Sure, I could see some wacky Skyrim mod where animals explode when they die being fun and goofy, or exploding when you go to loot them, but that would wear-off quick, wouldn't it? There are already plenty of games with a "flamethrower guy" or "grenade guy" where a good shot will earn you a reward, but you usually don't invite those kinds of people into your house to chill-out with your friends, family, and wooden floors, not do you?
well then dont have them in your base
nobody forces you to tame or hunt them. i am sure for the most part they get ignored by players. some wanna tame them, others wanna hunt them. others again wanna have them around to shoot them when raiders come.
i have great fun with them and i honestly believe most people do aswell
if you think there are so many players like you out there, make a survey:
"boomrats and boomalopes: are they fun? - yes/no"
Quote from: sick puppy on February 08, 2018, 06:15:52 PM
well then dont have them in your base
nobody forces you to tame or hunt them. i am sure for the most part they get ignored by players. some wanna tame them, others wanna hunt them. others again wanna have them around to shoot them when raiders come.
i have great fun with them and i honestly believe most people do aswell
if you think there are so many players like you out there, make a survey:
"boomrats and boomalopes: are they fun? - yes/no"
I want to have furry friends who I can send to headbutt enemies until they explode. I would prefer they didn't do this because the power went out and they had a heatstroke on the carpet. I do not understand why that is so hard to get across.
I like boomalopes and boomrats.
They are an interesting, unique, and
sometimes fun addition to the game.
I do not enjoy having to take precautions with them far beyond that of any other creature - including prisoners - in the entirety of the game. Therefore, that is not fun. I would prefer they were less not-fun to deal with.
you see? i think that's boring. why dont rats eat a carcass and spread the plague instead? that would make for awesome stories! the way it is right now, only the death of bondes animals and these boomers will affect you in any negative way. sure, you couldve sold your elephant instead if it didnt die, but dying pets is never a problem as long as not all of them die at once or something.
it seems to me that you want the cake AND you wanna eat it. well you cant. boomers go boom because you live with the danger that they can. otherwise they'd be overpowered.
but if you want it so much that you can get your overpowered boomers, get a mod done where they follow your own rules. i'm sure it's not that hard to make. and if you like it and it doesnt throw off the whole gameplay, spread it. until then it is fair to assume that it will make the game seem very modded.
ps: i understand your point, but including me nobody seems to share your opinion here. it will quite probably never make it to vanilla. i am sure tynan wants the (ab-)use of boomers in rimworld to be always like playing with fire and not a free way of shooting rocket launchers at the enemy
Quote from: sick puppy on February 09, 2018, 09:52:44 AM
you see? i think that's boring. why dont rats eat a carcass and spread the plague[/i] instead? that would make for awesome stories! the way it is right now, only the death of bondes animals and these boomers will affect you in any negative way. sure, you couldve sold your elephant instead if it didnt die, but dying pets is never a problem as long as not all of them die at once or something.
it seems to me that you want the cake AND you wanna eat it. well you cant. boomers go boom because you live with the danger that they can. otherwise they'd be overpowered.
but if you want it so much that you can get your overpowered boomers, get a mod done where they follow your own rules. i'm sure it's not that hard to make. and if you like it and it doesnt throw off the whole gameplay, spread it. until then it is fair to assume that it will make the game seem very modded.
ps: i understand your point, but including me nobody seems to share your opinion here. it will quite probably never make it to vanilla. i am sure tynan wants the (ab-)use of boomers in rimworld to be always like playing with fire and not a free way of shooting rocket launchers at the enemy
1. It's not a disease. They're engineered to be the way that they are.
2. Loosing bonded and boomer creatures is pretty bad, and so is losing your only female, your only healthy battle creature, losing your milk-producing/egg-laying creatures when they turn grass into food and your colonists aren't good enough at growing or hunting to rely on one or another, losing your haulers in a colony full of "incapable of dumb labor", losing your rescuers when your last combat-ready colonist is down, bleeding, far out of the bounds of your walls. Animals are important if you utilize them right.
3. I want the cake, and eating it would be pretty nice. However, I'm sure you could agree that eating that cake would be pretty tough if it blew your arm off when you tried to get a slice. I'm pretty okay with not eating the cake after it's been shot or set on fire . . . that's pretty commonly viewed as a ruined cake.
4. I have grenades and rocket launchers in my colony right now. They can go boom, but only when I want them to. I can put them in the freezer, I can put them out in the desert during a heat wave, I don't even have to feed them, and they can explode yards away from me. What would make less explosive boomies more overpowered than those?
5. If I was a pawn, my "Coding" would be at about a one. I play Rimworld to relax, I don't want to have to work for my games after I worked to buy them already, sue me. If it was that drastic of an issue, I'd have my idea buried somewhere in the mod requests right next to the Master Chief armor and dragons. I can deal with it, it's fine, it'd just be a nice touch. I'm not asking for a new system, it's a simple change. Do you want people to mod-in every little issue they have? I'm not saying that Tynan bends to every request we have or should, but small, minor elements are added to the game all the time.
6. "but including me nobody seems to share your opinion here." The game has sold 1,000,000 copies recently, pretty awesome achievement. Seven people have commented on here in total. Even assuming that everybody bought the game twice, that's a whole 1.4% of the community. I'm sure
somebody else could see my point of view.
7. "it will quite probably never make it to vanilla". . . just like caravans, a 3D world, a way to bring colonists back to life, orbital laser strikes, and animals that explode when they die.
8. Boomies aren't free rockets. A free rocket is a free rocket. You don't have to feed rockets, rockets aren't slow, and you can't shoot a rocket in the brain before it reaches you.
The point is not about their power. This unpredictability of boomies adds some spice to the game. They would be less interesting without it. There are Zzzzt, Tornado, Flashstorms, etc., and boomies just provide us some more micro-incidents. Of course we can't easily calculate, but I suppose there are decent amount of players who will lose a part of their fun if these explosions will become more controllable. Many things become boring when they have no chance to break from the player's control. So I think this idea is more like for some mod than for vanilla so players could choose what they want.
Quote from: Call me Arty on February 09, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: sick puppy on February 09, 2018, 09:52:44 AM
you see? i think that's boring. why dont rats eat a carcass and spread the plague[/i] instead? that would make for awesome stories! the way it is right now, only the death of bondes animals and these boomers will affect you in any negative way. sure, you couldve sold your elephant instead if it didnt die, but dying pets is never a problem as long as not all of them die at once or something.
it seems to me that you want the cake AND you wanna eat it. well you cant. boomers go boom because you live with the danger that they can. otherwise they'd be overpowered.
but if you want it so much that you can get your overpowered boomers, get a mod done where they follow your own rules. i'm sure it's not that hard to make. and if you like it and it doesnt throw off the whole gameplay, spread it. until then it is fair to assume that it will make the game seem very modded.
ps: i understand your point, but including me nobody seems to share your opinion here. it will quite probably never make it to vanilla. i am sure tynan wants the (ab-)use of boomers in rimworld to be always like playing with fire and not a free way of shooting rocket launchers at the enemy
1. It's not a disease. They're engineered to be the way that they are.
2. Loosing bonded and boomer creatures is pretty bad, and so is losing your only female, your only healthy battle creature, losing your milk-producing/egg-laying creatures when they turn grass into food and your colonists aren't good enough at growing or hunting to rely on one or another, losing your haulers in a colony full of "incapable of dumb labor", losing your rescuers when your last combat-ready colonist is down, bleeding, far out of the bounds of your walls. Animals are important if you utilize them right.
3. I want the cake, and eating it would be pretty nice. However, I'm sure you could agree that eating that cake would be pretty tough if it blew your arm off when you tried to get a slice. I'm pretty okay with not eating the cake after it's been shot or set on fire . . . that's pretty commonly viewed as a ruined cake.
4. I have grenades and rocket launchers in my colony right now. They can go boom, but only when I want them to. I can put them in the freezer, I can put them out in the desert during a heat wave, I don't even have to feed them, and they can explode yards away from me. What would make less explosive boomies more overpowered than those?
5. If I was a pawn, my "Coding" would be at about a one. I play Rimworld to relax, I don't want to have to work for my games after I worked to buy them already, sue me. If it was that drastic of an issue, I'd have my idea buried somewhere in the mod requests right next to the Master Chief armor and dragons. I can deal with it, it's fine, it'd just be a nice touch. I'm not asking for a new system, it's a simple change. Do you want people to mod-in every little issue they have? I'm not saying that Tynan bends to every request we have or should, but small, minor elements are added to the game all the time.
6. "but including me nobody seems to share your opinion here." The game has sold 1,000,000 copies recently, pretty awesome achievement. Seven people have commented on here in total. Even assuming that everybody bought the game twice, that's a whole 1.4% of the community. I'm sure somebody else could see my point of view.
7. "it will quite probably never make it to vanilla". . . just like caravans, a 3D world, a way to bring colonists back to life, orbital laser strikes, and animals that explode when they die.
8. Boomies aren't free rockets. A free rocket is a free rocket. You don't have to feed rockets, rockets aren't slow, and you can't shoot a rocket in the brain before it reaches you.
this is getting ridiculous.
1) and the way they are right now is that they explode no matter what caused their death.
2) at that rate you could also say the death of grass or a bush could affect you badly. that's not what is meant. if you only have a single fighter and that fighter is an animal, you made bad decisions beforehand. and dont come up with even less probable or interesting scenarios. in most scenarios you have a bunch of pawns and most are capable of most things. and single animals are not as much worth. if you wanna have a single nudist rich explorer that cant haul or fight and your only animal that can help you out in this regard is a boar and it dies, well, ok. that is one, highly improbable case. most players dont play scenarios like that though. an animal in rimworld is not as important or good as a pawn. an exception could be the thrumbo but it is very difficult to tame and teach. you have to put a lot more into teaching it to attack and haul than to recruit enough pawns to get the same effect. and there is no need to make boomers as strong/useful as them.
3) so what are you trying to say? the longer you stick to the cake metaphor the less sense it makes.
4) grenades need pawns to throw them. boomers are automated heat seeking incendiary missiles and you can release a whole army of them at once. they reproduce by themselves and can even conventionally attack enemy pawns before exploding if they are fleeing for example. they produce chemfuel. and they barely increase your colony's wealth.
5) modders already do that, day in and day out. then there are meta modders that gather all these small mods to make one mega mod out of it. if you look for a change like this in the mod section, i wouldnt be surprised if somebody did it ages ago without throwing a fit.
6) if people are as annoyed as you are by this issue, they tend to come here and open the same threads over and over again. yet, there arent any more answers here, not even a mod merging this with an old thread.
7) friendly reminder to you that 1.0 is around the corner and that tynan doesnt seem very keen on taking new stuff into it.
8) not only that but they have infinite range and will come back to your arsenal if their target dies prematurely. honestly, i have never used rockets extensively in my playthroughs, but boomalopes and boomrats? hell yeah. they are very well worth the risk to be able to wreak havoc among enemy ranks, especially around corners, but also have so many other options with.
Okay, this is getting crazy, so I'm not going to respond so in-depth to everything again.
This suggestion - the product of an idea and originator of this thread - was after I set a boomalope to slaughter, and had to rescue two burning pawns and minimize the damage to a burning barn. I thought "Wow, that's stupid" because it is. I then thought "well, what if slaughtering didn't kill them?" That didn't make sense, as slaughtering is just cutting the neck, yet, we couldn't cut anywhere else? If only cut damage was excluded, bullets wouldn't ignite them, and we should include blunt damage too, and so-on and so forth.
Giving the explosive creatures a unique organ simply made the most logical sense. Now, you can butcher them, they can die of natural causes, and you can still kill them in the wild, you simply have more control over when they explode in your base. Expecting a player to prepare for a heart attack or infection, or even a designated slaughter area for two kinds of creatures out of fifty-ish is asking too much, you can see a similar reaction to player's feelings on infestations and tornadoes. You can prepare for a raid with turrets and traps, stock-up with some proper medicine in preparation for a plague or suite of parasites, and keep clothing and temperature systems ready for sudden weather changes, but somethings are seen as . . . unfair. Tornadoes come with no warning and can erase hours of progress, and hives can punish players who play smart (bunkers beat mansions in the middle of a field).
This is where my concern comes from. Giving the player agency, but not a free ride. The amount of care and security put into boomies outmatches the drills we use to mine chemfuel, the cows we use for food, the places we use to manufacture weapons and the rooms we use to house those who handle them. That's ridiculous. Sure, some may welcome it, but overall it's a hurdle many players (including me) aren't ready to leap. I simply ask for more freedom to have them without the almost forced penalties that come with caring for the critters. Fire, gunshots, arrows, whatever. They ignite them all the same, just like old times, but now noncombatant deaths aren't going to ruin a day.