Ludeon Forums

Hey all. Version 1.0 is now content-locked. That means we'll only be changing it if there's a serious bug to address.

It's on the Steam unstable branch. Please, everyone who wishes, take it for a test run! It should be less buggy than Beta 19. We focused on bugfixing, so the only notable new feature is the food restrictions, which you can use to control what people are allowed to eat. If you do find a bug, please report it in the Bugs forum (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?board=11.0).

To enable the unstable branch, open your Steam library, right-click RimWorld, click Properties, go to the Betas tab, and select 'unstable' from the dropdown menu.

Modders
Modders, it'd be great if you could update your mods and make a version for 1.0. In general mods should require few to no changes to work for 1.0 - mostly just a recompile if you're using code.

The Beta19 release caused a lot of anger as some mods were updated in-place, while other mods weren't. So a lot of people had their savegames broken, often irrevocably. Heartbreak and anger, and it was pretty justified. As a player I certainly don't expect updates to trash a treasured save with no warning. Even going back to the old version didn't help if a mod was updated in-place to the new version.

That's why this time I'm placing the game up content-locked for a period before release, and recommending that modders please do not overwrite your Beta 19 versions of mods with your 1.0 version. It would be better to upload them separately onto the Workshop, to prevent breaking peoples' games when they change versions. (Many modders already do this but if everyone does, the mod version confusion disaster will be solved).

I won't enforce this in any way, of course. It's a request, motivated by a desire to not break that implicit "we won't trash your game" contract with players.

(EDIT: Backstory and reasoning why I'm requesting this).

I'm still working on selecting an exact release date. But the day is coming closer.

Translations and creative content

Though I hope to not update the code if possible, to preserve compatibility, I will be continuing to update the translations and creative content both before and after 1.0 release. This kind of content doesn't break compatibility. So translators and people entering creative content can continue to enter content without worrying that it'll be left out.

Congratulations on this major milestone!

Your game is much loved... but you know this already.  ;D

Undocumented change/bugfix: thrumbo base manhunter chance upon harming increased from 35%->100%

Very very awesome. I can't wait to take it for a spin!

Can you post a changelog dump of the bug fixes?  When you've replied on the bug forum it's not immediately clear if a given bug is fixed or not in 1.0.

This is amazing! I have been playing rimworld back before we had stockpiles. This game is an absolute masterpiece  and you are a genius programmer.

@Tynan: just in general I myself and probably a lot of other modders would appreciate a short announcement before 1.0 actually hits the shelves. Maybe not weeks in advance but a few days so we can scramble and crunch through some additional features we want to release or fixing to get the mod release ready in time.
It's an odd system to wake up in the morning and check the forum or steam every day to see if it has been released yet.

You'll know the date before it comes out.

Anyway, this is the announcement. The unstable version right now is 1.0, unless we find an important bug that needs fixing. And even if we do fix a bug, it probably won't affect mods. So you can pretty much go all in on developing for 1.0 now, the actual release shouldn't disrupt you at all.

Is there a changelog?

Does this have the change with bullets passing through layers of body parts reducing damage? I tested it and the body part damage looks the same as B19.

Quote from: Tynan on October 01, 2018, 10:29:21 PM
Modders
Modders, it'd be great if you could update your mods and make a version for 1.0. In general mods should require few to no changes to work for 1.0 - mostly just a recompile if you're using code.

Please do not overwrite your Beta 19 versions of mods with your 1.0 version. Upload them separately onto the Workshop, to prevent breaking peoples' games when they change versions.

I have my reservations with this approach. How do you envision this?

I'd much rather update my B19 mods to 1.0 when the time comes. ~0.1% of users might complain because their saves broke but I would rather ignore a few rude people than inconvenience the 99.9% that have to search for a new version.

In the interim, those that really want a specific mod during an unstable testing can hunt down links from GitHub etc. From my experience unstable players are the die-hard fans who generally don't mind the extra step.

Damnit Tynan, I have my final exams for school coming up in the next 2 months and you're probably releasing 1.0 soon? Shame on you for sabotaging my results :p

Mods are for the weak. Real men play Merciless vanilla.

Quote from: Mehni on October 02, 2018, 03:02:35 AM

Quote from: Tynan on October 01, 2018, 10:29:21 PM
Modders
Modders, it'd be great if you could update your mods and make a version for 1.0. In general mods should require few to no changes to work for 1.0 - mostly just a recompile if you're using code.

Please do not overwrite your Beta 19 versions of mods with your 1.0 version. Upload them separately onto the Workshop, to prevent breaking peoples' games when they change versions.

I have my reservations with this approach. How do you envision this?

I'd much rather update my B19 mods to 1.0 when the time comes. ~0.1% of users might complain because their saves broke but I would rather ignore a few rude people than inconvenience the 99.9% that have to search for a new version.

In the interim, those that really want a specific mod during an unstable testing can hunt down links from GitHub etc. From my experience unstable players are the die-hard fans who generally don't mind the extra step.

Please don't update in-place. In practice it just makes the game 100% unusable for people who want to continue an old save for any reason. This is much more than 0.1% of the population, and it's pretty awful to lose a 30-hour save with no way to recover it.

Many players play with many mods. So if just one mod author updates in place, the save becomes unusable. We cannot count on every mod author being as diligent as you, so it's better to take the safer and more controllable route. Automatically trashing thousands of peoples' savegames with no warning is not cool.

There's also a lot of value in going back to old versions, even for historical reasons. You destroy all of this if you wipe the old version of your mod.

It's easy to upload a proper separate version and it's easy for players to re-subscribe. Much better than having your long savegame trashed and there's nothing you can do about it. Please do not wipe your mod out from under everyone; please do not irrevocably ruin everyone's savegames. Upload a versioned copy.

Users who know how to switch to unstable are savy enough to get their mods from github. The rest will see their mods in red and will choose to play without them.

Yes I think most players won't switch to the latest unstable build and will just do the cutover once it gets officially released.
The ones that do switch to the unstable branch either play without mods or download the mods they want from github, nexusmods, dropbox or whatever as long as those are still in development.

Most modders I know will just upload the latest (1.0) version of their mod to steam once it actually gets officially released. At that point the majority of players who never used the unstable version anyway will automatically download the latest 1.0 compatible version and will happily continue on with their life (and new colony).
Players who want to go back to their old save will be able to revert back to the old version. A lot of modders I know (including myself) also upload a legacy version somewhere, just not on steam.

Releasing a 1.0 mod early on steam actually has a major downside: unless the mod isn't already well known most people won't ever see the mod anyway since it won't show up in the popular mod list because there aren't as many players who already use the unstable version.

The reason has nothing to do with the unstable build.

It's so that when 1.0 becomes the default, everyone's games don't become irrevocably broken. We want it to be possible to continue a beta19 game on the beta19 branch.

If you update your mods in place the day 1.0 comes out, anyone finishing a Beta19 game is simply screwed. This will be thousands and thousands of people.

Is there changelog somewhere? I'm especially interested in wealth, raid and difficulty balance in the final version (I hope you read my cry for changes that will make game challengeable for me and other good players). You said that 1.0 is content-complete so if there would be balance changes they would be now.

QuoteIf you update your mods in place the day 1.0 comes out, anyone finishing a Beta19 game is simply screwed. This will be thousands and thousands of people.

Like it happen since Rimworld is on steam.
Even when you mention this on the forum, i bet a majory of the steam modder don't even read here.

I mentioned it over on the Steam forums and pointed back here. I'm fairly sure word will get around.

I plan to spread the word wider as time goes on.

I like to do staged announcements.

Seeing as 1.0's content-complete, I suppose that means there isn't room for suggestions like being able to set default food policies (thanks for adding those by the way) for prisoners, colonists, animals and so on?

Alright! Time to update some of my mods!

Good luck with your game's future, Tynan! I hope i could find and squash those bugs along with my brother if he doesn't stop playing shooter games with his friends.

People actually play "modded" scenarios?

Quote from: vzoxz0 on October 02, 2018, 08:28:15 AM
People actually play "modded" scenarios?

Presumably. Though I'm not sure where that came from as nobody mentioned scenarios up until now.

So, should the Suggestions forum have a pinned post that redirects people to the Mods forum instead, now that the game's finished with new content?

Quote from: notfood on October 02, 2018, 03:36:24 AM
Users who know how to switch to unstable are savy enough to get their mods from github. The rest will see their mods in red and will choose to play without them.

Not every mod has a github page. Most of the more advanced ones do, but not all of them do

Quote from: Diana Winters on October 02, 2018, 11:14:51 AM

Quote from: notfood on October 02, 2018, 03:36:24 AM
Users who know how to switch to unstable are savy enough to get their mods from github. The rest will see their mods in red and will choose to play without them.

Not every mod has a github page. Most of the more advanced ones do, but not all of them do

True, and I'd also argue that not even close to everyone who figured out how to change to a beta in Steam could figure out github. I'd possibly go so far as, more couldn't figure it out than could.

Will we see an improvement on the mod list? It's a lot to be desired.

Something like Fluffy's mod manager should be adopted officialy: https://github.com/FluffierThanThou/ModManager

Quote from: Tynan on October 02, 2018, 05:19:09 AM
The reason has nothing to do with the unstable build.

It's so that when 1.0 becomes the default, everyone's games don't become irrevocably broken. We want it to be possible to continue a beta19 game on the beta19 branch.

If you update your mods in place the day 1.0 comes out, anyone finishing a Beta19 game is simply screwed. This will be thousands and thousands of people.

Wait, so.. I could switch to 1.0 right now, and I could continue playing my unmodded b19 save with (virtually) no problems?

Quote from: Third_Of_Five on October 02, 2018, 02:08:32 PM

Quote from: Tynan on October 02, 2018, 05:19:09 AM
The reason has nothing to do with the unstable build.

It's so that when 1.0 becomes the default, everyone's games don't become irrevocably broken. We want it to be possible to continue a beta19 game on the beta19 branch.

If you update your mods in place the day 1.0 comes out, anyone finishing a Beta19 game is simply screwed. This will be thousands and thousands of people.

Wait, so.. I could switch to 1.0 right now, and I could continue playing my unmodded b19 save with (virtually) no problems?

You should mostly have been able to do the same going from B18 to B19.

Quote from: BlackSmokeDMax on October 02, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
You should mostly have been able to do the same going from B18 to B19.

No, I don't think so. Pretty sure Tynan himself has said b19 breaks b18.

I'm sorry and lose all my stats/subs etc on my WS Item just bc someone is too lazy to go and download the old version of my mod, bc his EA game *gasp* dared to update?
Yeah...no.

Tynan smoothly ignores the screams for patch notes

Hey Tynan just one last quick question:

Has the grave names bug been fixed? Do graves now state the names of their occupants again instead of "Human Corpse"?

Will you be removing mods from the Workshop if modders update in-place or is this just a friendly suggestion?

Tynan, respectfully, the day you start paying me is the day you can tell me how to update my mods.

I've always kept my mods in sync with the current 'main' release of RimWorld on Steam. I believe that for the vast majority of players, this is by far the best solution; their mods will continue working on new versions of RimWorld without any action on their part. Players that want to continue an old save game will already have to manually switch versions. It doesn't seem logical that players who don't manually change game versions, do have to manually change all of their mods.
Yes, this will break save games for some people. I'm sorry, but that's on you for a) changing the API (seriously, moving Translate?!), and b) using Steam Workshop to begin with (the lack of version control is laughable).

I'm already hard-pressed to maintain interactions with the people that use my mods, with discussions spread out over the forums, a dozen or so steam pages and my GitHub repositories. I'm certainly not going to spread the discussion out even more. I'm not going to lose my workshop item stats and create extra work because some people wouldn't take the effort to fetch old version of my mods from alternative download locations.

I'd also like to add that your tone in this has seriously pissed me off. I understand you're under pressure for a good 1.0 release, and I'm aware that mods are a pretty big chunk of RimWorlds' appeal. That should be all the more reason for you to treat modders with a bit more respect.

I wish you a great 1.0 release, and in the meantime, I'll keep releasing my mods like I always have.

Edit; typos. Thanks skully, you wanker :P.

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on October 02, 2018, 03:47:43 PM

I'd also like to add that your tone in this has seriously pissed me off. I understand you're under pressure for a good 1.0 release, and I'm aware that mods are a pretty big chunk of RimWorlds' appeal. That should be all the more reason for you to treat modders with a bit more respect.

I'm not going to try and speak for Tynan, but I fail to see how this could be interpreted as disrespectful to modders. If anything, isn't it the opposite? Tynan is giving people time to update their mods for the 1.0 release. That seems pretty considerate of him, in my opinion.

I'm not a modder though, and I'm not going to fight about this. I'm just confused as to why you're mad.

It is interpreted as extremely disrespectful for mod authors for reasons that are best left to another discussion. For now we can keep things copacetic with a few clarifications.

Quote from: Third_Of_Five on October 02, 2018, 03:51:34 PM
I'm not going to try and speak for Tynan, but I fail to see how this could be interpreted as disrespectful to modders.

Someone much smarter than me said it like this;
Imagine if a guy owned a hotel and I came every day and cleaned for free. So people like his hotel and pay him more. I do this for years. Now the hotel owner comes and tells me I'm cleaning wrong and please clean more of the rooms? For free. Just bc he said so.

I'd like to add that the hotel owner also did so without thanking me for my labour, or asking me for my opinion. Does that seem right? I never asked nor expected to be paid, and I don't need any thanks - but this is just rubbing me the wrong way.

Oh, one more thing, for those out there that are worried about save games getting broken, there's a much better solution: create local copies of Workshop mods. You can do this manually, or use a mod for it to do it in-game; Mod Switch (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1139051045) or my own Mod Manager (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1507748539).

It seems a little futile if, as big T said, just a single modder updating in place will break a save. Also as fluffy said, it is suspect that this suggestion to modders is only now being given for the official release ($$$$$), when for all the previous versions nobody really cared about breaking saves.

Quote from: Third_Of_Five on October 02, 2018, 02:08:32 PM

Quote from: Tynan on October 02, 2018, 05:19:09 AM
The reason has nothing to do with the unstable build.

It's so that when 1.0 becomes the default, everyone's games don't become irrevocably broken. We want it to be possible to continue a beta19 game on the beta19 branch.

If you update your mods in place the day 1.0 comes out, anyone finishing a Beta19 game is simply screwed. This will be thousands and thousands of people.

Wait, so.. I could switch to 1.0 right now, and I could continue playing my unmodded b19 save with (virtually) no problems?

That's what he's saying.

Also, if it DOES break your save, you can just go back to B19 and keep going on that.

Quote from: 5thHorseman on October 02, 2018, 05:34:24 PM
That's what he's saying.

Also, if it DOES break your save, you can just go back to B19 and keep going on that.

Wait, really?

Hold on, by that do you mean it won't corrupt my save file or are you just assuming I'll make backups?

Quote from: Third_Of_Five on October 02, 2018, 07:34:43 PM

Quote from: 5thHorseman on October 02, 2018, 05:34:24 PM
That's what he's saying.

Also, if it DOES break your save, you can just go back to B19 and keep going on that.

Wait, really?

Hold on, by that do you mean it won't corrupt my save file or are you just assuming I'll make backups?

Well first off, yes you should make backups :)

Secondly though no, it will not hurt your save. IF and ONLY IF you are not doing Commitment mode. But if you're doing Commitment mode in a beta you're asking for trouble anyway because in a beta there are a lot more things than version upgrades that can trash saves.

Assuming you're in Reload Anytime mode then yes, when you load your save in 1.0, even if it loads fine and you play for hours, so long as you don't re-save over the old save name that old save will be exactly the way it was when you saved it back in 0.19.

Major RimWorld version released. When you have +200 mods, it's such an unpleasant chore to search for the new ones for those modders who like to split versions. It misses the whole point of having steam autoupdate mods. I don't want to inflict that pain to others.

Give us a better mod list manager that handles these cases and everyone will be happy.

Are going to keep the Alphas and the Betas, Tynan?

I hope you don't remove them from the steam betas, since some people are still playing in B19 or B18 & have built large colonies that they built so hard for hours and days in your game, they don't want to loose their hard work they have built in. :(

Vanilla savegames should be compatible A18->B19->1.0 and possibly from A17 as well.

Let me explain why I'm requesting that modders not update in-place.

So I never felt it worth worrying about how modders updated before. Every update there was some confusion over mods, but it wasn't that big a deal.

However the B18->B19 update was very rough. There were a lot of permanently broken saves (without warning), a lot of anger, a lot of angry messages to me (justifiably!), and a month-long period of instability as players had to repeatedly re-check which mods are and aren't updated and update their mods list.

The size of the community has grown. Most players will never interact with any dev or modder in any way, but are still being affected. When it's 1,000 players, that's one thing. When it's 100,000 players, that's something else.

This is why I figured I'd ask modders to update using a method that, while slightly less convenient in some ways, significantly reduces the suffering in the world by guaranteeing that nobody's game gets trashed out from under them.

To me that's a solid expectation I have as a player: If I'm playing a game, it won't just get trashed one day with no recourse. So I don't want to violate that for RimWorld players.

I think the benefit of being able to play historical versions with historical mods is also significant.

It's worth noting that many modders already keep separate versions like this on the Workshop.

I do wish Steam had better support for all this. But they've not seen fit to address my requests on the subject.

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on October 02, 2018, 03:47:43 PM
I've always kept my mods in sync with the current 'main' release of RimWorld on Steam. I believe that for the vast majority of players, this is by far the best solution; their mods will continue working on new versions of RimWorld without any action on their part.

This works fine for people using one mod. But many, many players use many mods, and for them it sadly won't work this way. e.g. A user with 30 mods will have his game rendered unusable the moment Steam auto-updates to 1.0, unless every single mod author of all those 30 mods instantly updates (and solves all inter-mod compatibility issues).

The B18->B19 experience shows that this isn't going to happen. In fact it took several weeks for the ecosystem to stabilize, and I was receiving angry reports of peoples' games being trashed for a month after. This is an experience I want to not repeat.

Players would go back to the old beta branch, game broken. They try the new version, game broken. It's awful for them.

One mod may keep working, but there is no chance that a player with 10+ mods will be able to keep playing without any action on their part. They'll have to struggle, wait, search through forums - and possibly never be able to continue at all if any given mod doesn't update perfectly.

QuoteYes, this will break save games for some people. I'm sorry, but that's on you for a) changing the API (seriously, moving Translate?!), and b) using Steam Workshop to begin with (the lack of version control is laughable).

Regarding the API, we actually put a lot of work into making sure that 1.0 code required no API changes from B19. I considered this a requirement. Translate is an extension method and we always use it that way, so it seemed here that the API worked without changes. It just never occurred to us that people were using it another way. I'm sorry about that.

(Translate had to be significantly refactored to handle other languages noun gender and other such complexities - it's a much more powerful method now. This was a major project for 1.0. But we did intend the API not to change. In any case this change seems relatively minor - a single find/replace, I hope.)

Even if we didn't change the API, the binary interface would change and compatibility would still break. So keeping the API the same makes updating easier, but it won't make mods just work without recompilation.

I agree Steam Workshop is awful with version control, but you can't get angry at me for using it. Many, many players get great value out of it. It's so much more convenient than manual installs, I think mods mods would get much less use if it weren't for Workshop. So in that way it enriches the mod community.

QuoteI'm already hard-pressed to maintain interactions with the people that use my mods, with discussions spread out over the forums, a dozen or so steam pages and my GitHub repositories. I'm certainly not going to spread the discussion out even more. I'm not going to lose my workshop item stats and create extra work because some people wouldn't take the effort to fetch old version of my mods from alternative download locations.

I didn't think it was any significant extra work. Just copying the mod directory and changing some metadata. You're certainly not obligated to keep visiting discussions about old versions of your mods.

QuoteI'd also like to add that your tone in this has seriously pissed me off. I understand you're under pressure for a good 1.0 release, and I'm aware that mods are a pretty big chunk of RimWorlds' appeal. That should be all the more reason for you to treat modders with a bit more respect.

I certainly never meant any disrespect. I didn't interpret this as asking for anything that adds any noticeable difficulty for modders. The goal is simply to not irrevocably trash thousands of peoples' savegames and thus ruin their day and piss them off. It's about serving players better; I thought this would be desired information.

Never imagined it'd be interpreted as some kind of burdensome demand.

You'll understand why I'd make that recommendation, right? The calculation is: We did it the old way before and it demonstrably created huge problems. If we do the same thing, we'll get the same terrible result. But there's a different way that would benefit the 100,000+ players at a comparatively tiny cost to modders. It makes sense to request that modders use a new method when the old method was so awful. (And many modders were already uploading separate versions of their mods anyway).

QuoteI wish you a great 1.0 release

Thanks!

QuoteI'll keep releasing my mods like I always have.

Well, I hope you'll reconsider. Your mods are great, lots of people enjoy them, and irrevocably trashing all those games-in-progress would hurt all those players. It seems unnecessary when there's such a good alternative that many modders already use.

However what I wrote is simply a request. I'm not going to police this or start banning mods that don't update or something. In truth I never expected anyone would have an issue with it given the cost is so tiny for such a huge benefit. But, I've made mistakes before. I should've explained the reasoning better the first time.

Quote from: Kirby23590 on October 02, 2018, 11:11:18 PM
Are going to keep the Alphas and the Betas, Tynan?

I hope you don't remove them from the steam betas, since some people are still playing in B19 or B18 & have built large colonies that they built so hard for hours and days in your game, they don't want to loose their hard work they have built in. :(

I'm not removing any historical versions. While vanilla play is compatible between recent versions, modded play won't ever be and I'd like people to be able to finish their 100-hour game without it getting trashed!

I also think there's a lot of value in being able to go back and play old versions out of historical interest.

Quote from: Tynan on October 02, 2018, 11:24:07 PM

Quote from: Kirby23590 on October 02, 2018, 11:11:18 PM
Are going to keep the Alphas and the Betas, Tynan?

I hope you don't remove them from the steam betas, since some people are still playing in B19 or B18 & have built large colonies that they built so hard for hours and days in your game, they don't want to loose their hard work they have built in. :(

I'm not removing any historical versions. While vanilla play is compatible between recent versions, modded play won't ever be and I'd like people to be able to finish their 100-hour game without it getting trashed!

I also think there's a lot of value in being able to go back and play old versions out of historical interest.

Whew!

That's actually good to hear! Thank you, Great Tynan! ;D

If a Workshop item is really popular, it doesn't matter if you put a new version of it on Workshop. It will regain its following in a relatively short period of time.

As you may know, I have always released separate versions. The user experience of this (at least from the ones who comment, I'm not a mind reader after all) has been very positive. Occasionally someone lands on an old version and posts a comment asking when it will be updated. I can't be everywhere, but I do get the word out when I put a new version up so that people have a decent chance of hearing about it.

I'm inclined to go with what the users of my mods seem to favour.

Honestly, Tynan, Steam Workshop is really showing its age. We should be able to have like a mini-hub which connects related Workshop mods. Instead I have to copy and paste markdown code like a chump so that people can navigate between versions. You can quote me on that next time you have a chat with Valve. ;)

Tynan, couldn't you make some way to put backwards compatibility into the mods themselves?  Like a 0.19 subfolder inside the mod dir that, if detected, would be loaded instead?

That way a mod could be compatible with multiple versions and things would just work, if the mod author enabled it.

I made a new steam page for my mods b18->b19 and I regret doing it for these reasons:

• The discussions / comments do not transfer.
• The stats start over from zero and that makes me sad.
• The search function for steam doesn't filter only current version by default, so they show up twice now which is confusing. Some people have resorted to putting the game version number for their mods in the actual thumbnail picture.

I also think if everyone makes a new page as you suggested, it will make the 'popular items' and 'most recent' views less useful.

When rimworld updates I'm going to try the following instead, and see how it goes:

• Update in place my mods so they keep their same steam ID#, stats, comments, discussions
• Delete any versions that are too old ( like a b18 version for example )
• Make a new steam page ONLY if it's requested, but the new steam page will be for the older version of the mod.

I don't think I have ever had comments saying "this broke my save game". They're ALWAYS "when will you update???" because Steam users expect a mod to auto update in-place much like their game auto updates in-place. I keep previous versions on GitHub where anyone savvy enough to opt into a previous alpha is likely enough to find them and I link those in obvious places.

I'm sorry if you've had outlash from users regarding B19, but let's face it B19 was marketed as 1.0 for the longest time and got suddenly released as another beta. I feel you're underselling how annoying this was to modders and mod users alike.

I think it's largely a matter of point of view.

Considered purely from a modder's point of view, doing destructive updates seems better because it concentrates discussion and stats and makes the update itself easier.

But from the player's point of view, destructive updates mean your savegame is destroyed with no way to recover, without warning. That's perma-ragequit material.

I try to balance the interests of players and modders. Considering the huge benefit to players and relatively small cost to modders, simply requesting modders do non-destructive updates seems like the right thing to do. The alternative - just staying silent and letting everything break - seems wrong to me.

As I said I'm not enforcing anything. At the end of the day it's your mods, your choice. But I'd be doing wrong if I didn't even ask.

But I really hope people won't do destructive updates just to keep old stats around. You can count your "score" as the usage of all your versions together, they don't need to be counted on any particular page. I love watching numbers go up but just consider the impact on people who have their 50-hour epic RimWorld story trashed and forever uncompletable.

I hoped this stable pre-release people would be helpful. Previously we've released updated without warning, which is easier for development. Hopefully this pre-release period means that modders won't have to check constantly for a game update like before.

I do say this a lot (I am Canadian after all) but I'll also be really clear that I'm extremely grateful to everyone who contributes anything to the RimWorld community - modders, comics makers, people who post screenshots or stories or bugs or feedback. I try to make a sense of gratitude the foundation for all my communications with the community at large.

Quote from: Dingo on October 03, 2018, 01:21:21 AM
I don't think I have ever had comments saying "this broke my save game".

I think it's a point-of-view thing. People blame the thing that changed last. When a game update happens and a save stops working, people see the core game update as being the cause. They wouldn't think "my game is broken because modders didn't update yet"; nobody expects modders to all update the moment a new game version is released. They're really pissed off, but you don't hear about it because they all complain to me instead.

I think you're not seeing a lot of compassion for steam users, because, frankly, they suck. They're largely the ones who complain the most and without reason, the ones who don't ever bother to check anything. It's hard to care about people who don't put any effort in.

Most people modders will actually care about are people who accept that when they add mods to their game, they're taking on responsibility, and accepting that there may be issues. They're taking on the mantle of debugging their own game and at least putting an even small effort into sorting out problems before complaining, or rather ideally, asking for help - and when they do ask for help, they provide some relevant information. The vast majority of this forum is like this.

The average steam user, just doesn't do that very often - you can't please them, so why try?
This:

Quote from: Tynan on October 03, 2018, 02:27:02 AM
I think it's a point-of-view thing. People blame the thing that changed last. When a game update happens and a save stops working, people see the core game update as being the cause. They wouldn't think "my game is broken because modders didn't update yet"; nobody expects modders to all update the moment a new game version is released. They're really pissed off, but you don't hear about it because they all complain to me instead.

is indicative of that.

If someone can't be bothered, when they probably know an update is coming because it's in the news for the game which shows up on the library page, to be ready for the update of an early access game with mods - be that locally copying the mods, or finding previous versions on available hosts that are almost always linked in the description of the mods, or just plain finishing their save up before the update hits - then it's really hard to give a damn.

I'm not saying that's fair, but it's the kind of issue that the click-and-go style of modding that steam workshop has created.

You know, what really irks me about Steam Workshop is that it's clearly possible for it to deliver a version controlled mod to the user - because right now, a modder can actually roll back a mod to a previous version from the item's change notes. And yet, when we could really really use that functionality, it isn't available to users (yet).

Thanks Valve. Really appreciate you listening (not).

The tedium of having to go through my list of 200+ subscribed mods to hunt down each new version on the Steam workshop kills my enjoyment of the game quicker than a lost save. "Why are there 3 versions of this mod? Which version do I need? Is this for the B19 version of 1.0 or for 1.0 version 2?" Take note of that last question: There are mods tagged 1.0 that won't work for 1.0! The update from B18 -> B19 was rough alright.

Players can make a back-up of their Steam mods if they wish to continue on outdated game versions. This is a copy-paste operation which requires little effort: all it takes is some preparation. A lack of preparation on their part does not constitute a problem on my part. It would be grand if RimWorld did that on behalf of the player prior to an update, but that's another discussion.

I'll be updating my mods in place. I'm not going to clutter the workshop or make hundreds of thousands of people go on a hunt for mods. Sucks for those that lost an "epic 50-hour save", but from my point-of-view it's the better system: consider the huge time-saving benefit of an automatic update for all those players using more than a dozen mods. Saves will break whatever happens. Plenty of modders won't read these forums, or use the new release to finally implement that breaking change.

Quote from: Mehni on October 03, 2018, 04:28:07 AM
There are mods tagged 1.0 that won't work for 1.0! The update from B18 -> B19 was rough alright.

I think that Tynan should clean those mods. Either take them down or just untag them all. The old 1.0 (pre B19) is not the new 1.0. It should be easy, anything tagged 1.0 before a few days ago walks.

So... I just tried out Fluffy's mod manager. It looks like a pretty good way for people to stick with a particular version of a mod. Made short work of backing up the mods I had downloaded from Workshop. Gave it a thumbs up.

If we could somehow get the entire playerbase subscribed to Mod Manager and get them to back up their mods, then saves wouldn't break.

Quote"Why are there 3 versions of this mod? Which version do I need?

Steam workshop has tags, if players just click the appropriate version tag all the non-matching mods disappear. Beyond that I recommend modders put a [B19] or [1.0] tag in the title, as many do already.

Quote from: Mehni on October 03, 2018, 04:28:07 AM
Is this for the B19 version of 1.0 or for 1.0 version 2?" Take note of that last question: There are mods tagged 1.0 that won't work for 1.0! The update from B18 -> B19 was rough alright.

This won't be an issue. I'm checking everything marked for 1.0 to get rid of the old ones that aren't updated. There are just 100 such mods - not too hard.

In my pre-release announcements I will be recommending people copy/paste their mod folders. But the great majority (>90%) of players don't read news like that. So most players will just get their games trashed without warning, if any mods are updated destructively.

Another thing with in-place update is that it's impossible to put the mod up during the current pre-release testing phase. It might be useful to test that way. Then, when 1.0 is marked final, the 1.0 version of the mod becomes final too.

Anyway, I'm surprised at the refusals. In-place updates don't add convenience for players because many modders won't do them promptly or ever. If half the mods are updated in-place and half get new versions, now the old save is broken AND players need to hunt down and figure out new mods and deactivate the old broken ones - while the mods are changing day to day. It seems much, much more straightforward to simply guarantee that a mod will always work for the version it was created for.

E.g. Finish your B19 game on B19 branch, then on starting a 1.0 game, select what mods you want that work and use those. The delay between 1.0 release and starting a new game adds some time for mods to get updated. As opposed to just trashing everyone's game and demanding they start anew in an environment where mods are changing daily.

From player's POV, both approaches have downsides, but the destructive approach's downsides seem universally worse.

Quote from: Tynan on October 03, 2018, 05:31:19 AM
If half the mods are updated in-place and half get new versions, now the old save is broken AND players need to hunt down and figure out new mods and deactivate the old broken ones - while the mods are changing day to day.

The mods automatically deactivate if they're not for the new version.

What makes this such a sensitive discussion is that modders are asked to give up the display of their accomplishments, just to save the games of people that were offered all the information they needed, but didn't do anything with it. Let me explain.

Speaking for myself, a large part that drives me to mod is the appreciation I get. Call it vanity or pride, but when I invested a lot of time into a mod, I'd hate to see it not being used, and I love to see the subscription numbers getting up after a release and accumulating over the years. By going for a new release each time it feels like i have to throw away this record of accomplishment to a place where nobody will ever look at it again.

But there's indeed the practical issue. If I'd update my mod in-place, a lot of players would have a problem. However, from my perspective, this is solved by sharing a legacy version. Now the problem is that many people won't take the effort to look for legacy versions, and instead just rage and place negative reviews. The dilemma I have now is that I have to give up "my sense of accomplishment" for people that might not deserve it, or because other modders didn't post a legacy version for their mod.

I'm seriously in doubt of what to do and haven't decided yet. I know my vanity or pride shouldn't be a reason to let saves of other people be ruined, but what makes it hard is that there's no good reason they have their saves ruined in the first place, and also that I know a lot of other modders won't make this "sacrifice".

I'm purely speaking for myself here by the way, and I have no intention to hurt other modders with the wording 'vanity or pride'. I think it's just very normal and human-like to have these feelings, and I think expressing them shouldn't be avoided in this discussion.

I certainly remember the joy of watching the download numbers go up on my Unreal Tournament maps. So I know what you mean Roolo.

But I guess my question is: Why are old versions considered invalid? You don't have to take them down. All the feedback and numbers are still there; you can still link people to them.

It seems fairly straightforward to add up old and new subs, from workshop and forums and Nexus, and claim "X total players". Fragmenting the source doesn't change the number.

Quote from: Tynan on October 03, 2018, 05:31:19 AM
I'm checking everything marked for 1.0 to get rid of the old ones that aren't updated. There are just 100 such mods - not too hard.

My mod Toolboxifier was one of those mods. However, I see nowhere that it says it's for 1.0.

It WAS for 1.0 back when 1.0 was unstable, but when 0.19 came out I changed it. I have no idea why (or even where) it's saying it's 1.0 nor do I have any clue on how to change it.

In the past I have always updated in place and just had older version available on GitHub. Although I can see both sides of the issue and have not decided what I will do for 1.0 yet.

At least with 1.0 being released now updates will be a lot less common / stopped so I am only looking a smallish increase in the number of workshop items I have available instead of increasing it for each new version, which could have gotten large very quickly since i just had a look and I have 21 separate workshop mods for various versions of Rimworld.

If there were going to be ongoing development then I would think it would be a good idea to enhance how Rimworld handles mods to better handle new versions of mods, (by allowing a mod to support multiple versions or stopping Rimworld from updating a mod that it does not support) but at 1.0 there is no point now.


Also Congratulations on getting the the final release and wishing you all the best in whatever you do next weather it is more Rimworld content another game or something entirely different. As far as I am concerned you really have done one of the best early access releases.

Quote from: Tynan on October 03, 2018, 07:01:58 AM
I certainly remember the joy of watching the download numbers go up on my Unreal Tournament maps. So I know what you mean Roolo.

But I guess my question is: Why are old versions considered invalid? You don't have to take them down. All the feedback and numbers are still there; you can still link people to them.

It seems fairly straightforward to add up old and new subs, from workshop and forums and Nexus, and claim "X total players". Fragmenting the source doesn't change the number.

That's indeed a straightforward way, but the problem is that only you yourself will take the older versions into account, and anyone else will just see the version you released latest, which doesn't feel as rewarding as having it summed up for everyone to see. Also, it ruins the chance for you mod to get high into the "most popular over n months" overviews, or "most subscribed" overviews, and therefore you might miss out on a lot of new subscribers as people don't tend to look past those overviews. Look at Edb's Prepare Carefully with almost half a million subscribers which will forever enjoy the honour of being most subscribed to. That certainly wouldn't have happened if he didn't go for in-place updates.

I'm aware it might sound selfish to take all this into account, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person that feels this way and expressing it might help clarifying some of the negative sentiments towards the requested policy.

Well anyhow, this is all I had to contribute to the discussion. Congratulations with being so close to release and good luck with wrapping things up!

Tynan, I would like to voice a major concern. There are lots of great mods, but the patching system is very slow. It feels like every time a mod patches, it has to recache the entire xml database. Load times are several minutes. I imagine this is what happening.

1) Patch operation is declared.
2) Database is loaded to memory.
3) Patch operation is committed.
4) Database is closed and purged from memory.
5) Another mod declares a patch operation...
6) Rinse repeat.

What would speed things up is if it kept the database in memory the entire time until every single mod has completed its patching operations.

Again if it already works this way and nothing can be done about it, I apologize, it's just my perception as to what is causing the very long load times.

Hey Roolo,

If people really enjoy your mod then they'll resub to a new version of it. It usually takes quite a few weeks for people to transition over, though.

I encourage people to follow me on Workshop so that they know when I've released a new (version of a) mod.

I've got a site of my own to cater to people who like direct downloads instead of Workshop. And for people who aren't afraid of a few rough edges, I release Dropbox test versions.

Some of my mods actually did better in numbers in new versions than old. Whether that's because they became more known or because they were better versions, I don't know.

What I do know is that, whatever you decide, you can at least prepare your user base for savepocalypse by letting them know what to expect. Maybe you tell them to get Fluffy's Mod Manager just in case.

@Roolo

I'm not a content creator of any sort but I understand where you're coming from. I also exclusively install from github or other like website, I don't use Steam other than upvoting the mods I like. It is tedious, but it's preferable over entire runs being totally broken. I can't speak more of that.

@Tynan

So I haven't gone into 1.0 yet, and I can't say anything about the new food policy, and while I'm completely fine with the features we've got, but when it comes to QoL stuff, I am somewhat worried if those are not address.

I'm sure you've got 50 pages of QoL stuff you've already planned for and 1000 pages of bug fixes you plan to do, but can you speak more about the QoL stuff people have wanted for since forever?

The only content I would LIKE to see a medieval style helmet of sorts, but other than that, I'm happy if 1.0 just have more QoL stuff.

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on October 02, 2018, 04:26:46 PM

Quote from: Third_Of_Five on October 02, 2018, 03:51:34 PM
I'm not going to try and speak for Tynan, but I fail to see how this could be interpreted as disrespectful to modders.

Someone much smarter than me said it like this;
Imagine if a guy owned a hotel and I came every day and cleaned for free. So people like his hotel and pay him more. I do this for years. Now the hotel owner comes and tells me I'm cleaning wrong and please clean more of the rooms? For free. Just bc he said so.

I'd like to add that the hotel owner also did so without thanking me for my labour, or asking me for my opinion. Does that seem right? I never asked nor expected to be paid, and I don't need any thanks - but this is just rubbing me the wrong way.

Oh, one more thing, for those out there that are worried about save games getting broken, there's a much better solution: create local copies of Workshop mods. You can do this manually, or use a mod for it to do it in-game; Mod Switch (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1139051045) or my own Mod Manager (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1507748539).

I guess the question really is: why are you "working" for free in the first place? If that's how you view it then I think you messed up somewhere along the line. Modding is a hobby, not some kind of internship. I don't see why a game maker should be grateful to people for voluntarily messing around with his game, or why you feel entitled to a seat on the board. Go make your own game maybe? You might even get paid. And your analogy is bogus anyway because nobody wants to stay in a dirty hotel but very large numbers of people want to play vanilla Rimworld. If a hotel is dirty people will go stay in a different one, whereas if Rimworld had no mods it would still be better than similar games. The number of people who wouldn't be playing Rimworld if there were no mods is very small and vocal, as is usually the case with such thing.

Thank you Tynan for the great work!
I still havent figured out  all B19 changes for mods :D

Latest unstable build on.

Tell me what's wrong here.

(https://i.imgur.com/P5rGi7T.png)

Let's hope I'm not the only one finding the oddity.

"No time for information! But here's the EXACT numbers of the raiders!"

I would prefer a rough number (ex: 14-16 mercenaries) instead.

There's no time to tell you if she has skills that are useful or is prone to setting your colony on fire in her spare time.

The Refugee Stats mod addresses this but it conflicts with Hospitality so I can't use it :(

Quote from: bigheadzach on October 03, 2018, 10:18:02 AM
There's no time to tell you if she has skills that are useful or is prone to setting your colony on fire in her spare time.

The Refugee Stats mod addresses this but it conflicts with Hospitality so I can't use it :(

I haven't used either mod since B18, but I thought as long as you loaded Refugee Stats after Hospitality it worked fine??

Thanks guys but it wasn't neither of those...

Ser Kitteh, it's always good to see you around and you were the closest of both, but your point very valid.

Big head Zach brings in another more important detail than the number of enemies...


But what I am finding in need of adjustment is the team composition. I mean... if you were trying to capture a pawn...would you really go with 6 grenadiers and 7 rocket launchers? I assume you want the prisoner...alive...right? I think such a team should be compromised by Gunners mostly...Although all shooting has an equal chance to kill the target to a certain degree...this example of chasers look more like a "Sapper" team than a group of chasers...

So Tynan: Tune them down.

Speaking about the mods topic, I think the people who plays with mods already know the risks of playing with it, if you broke your game for some reason, its your fault, nobody needs to protect them, and the new method of updating mods is gonna be a pain for heavy mod users and for the modders.

And even if you dont agree with that, you should known not all the community is going to do that, so even if you idea is the best thing, your attempt is futile, in the best case scenario you can expect a 50% of the modders doing that, so you now have a new problem, you still have the problem of broken games and the people who blame you (who are wrong), but now you have pissed some of the community too.

Let the communty flow in his way and ignore toxic users who blame Ludeon for his own faults.

Excuse my poor english, its not my native laguage.

And congrats for Rimworld 1.0, its an amazing game, and I hope that in one way or another we can continue to expect new Ludeon content, be it with DLCs, expansions or whatever else keeps the development healthy.

In almost all situations raiders behave in unimmersive ways, not just in refugee raids. Just view them as abstracted agents of pawn permanent damage and property destruction.

They are simply instruments of storytelling.

Tynan: What about future updates.. would they work similar to how they were in the past?
Things such as:
        - informing the user if using wrong version number?
        - Would it be labeled as 1.1? 

For what it's worth, I didn't find the post disrespectful.  The reason is obvious why he suggested we update that way, and the intention of being disrespectful would be out of character.

I may experiment with updating the subscribed mod, and add the older version on workshop. Of course I won't do this til official release and I'd link old version in description/comments for users. I'm sorry, but I've been doing the way as suggested and don't like it. I do hate the clutter this brings in the workshop tho but this is steams fault really.

Marv, from what I've seen it all depends what's on the workshop at the time you upload, if it made to the top etc.  But if it's a small mod (under 8,000) then you'll most likely get about the same amount subs back if it was in the same situation.  However, I can't speak for mods who have like 40,000+ subs, so I understand why they hesitate doing it this way.

Quote from: Tynan on October 03, 2018, 05:31:19 AM
1) Steam workshop has tags...

2) ...it's impossible to put the mod up during the current pre-release testing phase...

3) ...In-place updates don't add convenience for players...

4) ...now the old save is broken AND players need to hunt down and figure out new mods and deactivate the old broken ones

5) it seems much, much more straightforward to simply guarantee that a mod will always work for the version it was created for.

Preamble - try to read this post in a neutral tone. This is a good debate to have and hopefully we can all benefit.

1) Tags are pointless. They are the most lazy and uninspired mechanism in the Workshop by far. Go and click on the 0.15 tag, it's not as comfortable as browsing normally. If you want to make a real difference for modders and mod users you can try to involve Valve, maybe they'll listen to some of our ideas.

2) Modders who want to test their mods for 1.0 should definitely not do it on Steam unless they hate themselves. Forums and GitHub exist and feedback here is mostly well constructed.

3) As I have said before, part of Steam is updating and managing things automatically. I have been a Steam user for years and browse various Valve and Steam communities. This is ubiquitous across them all and the vast majority welcomes it without even mentioning the subject. If you think that in-place updates are not convenient for players then you are outing yourself as a complete outsider to what Steam is as a whole (no disrespect meant here).

4) A good point, but let's look at it from a different perspective. We're contemplating (previous version) saves breaking vs sending users to chase mods. Currently some percentage of players has to look for mods to accomodate whatever version they're running. What you're suggesting is we make 100% of the userbase chase 100% of their mod list to ensure they have the proper version. Does this really seem like a better, more convenient solution to you?

5) Some modders provide versioning (via GitHub releases, etc.) and some do not. Modders who do not will likely get flamed by users and either shrug it off or fall in line. My Workshop page for mod X is not "mod X on 2018-05-03", it's just "mod X". It's a service I offer to whomever wants a dedicated and up-to-date experience. I also include links where appropriate to make sure people can easily find previous releases.

I personally am not motivated by user numbers or praise. It's nice to have, but I mod because I get to learn from people who are better than me while giving something back to the community.

I will definitely be doing an in-place update to my mods on the Workshop. I am not going to answer questions, take feedback and respond to bug reports across 10 different Workshop pages. Some of my mods have pre/post B19 versions but that is as far as I go.

Tynan, I feel like you're gonna have to bite the bullet here. A lot of the hard-line refusals in this thread so far are also from mod authors who have the most widely used mods. If you don't have them on board, this initiative to discourage in-place updates is doomed.

I wish I had a good suggestion but I don't.

I'm a bit reluctant to admit it, but most likely I will also go the In-Place-Update variant.

For this I have the following reasoning:

1. It leaves my workshop collection small and tidy. One mod == One entry  vs.  One mod == X entries
    Same goes for the comments: One comment section per mod  vs.  X comment sections per mod

2. I am not asked to fix errors in an older version, as I only ever work with the latest version of my mods

3. I've done this for multiple versions now and only had a bunch of complains on the very first few days afterwards
    (And all could work in-between with the old mod versions from my GitHub)

4. With the new Mod Manager (by Fluffy for example) a backup in-time shouldn't be a problem anymore

5. My old versions can be found on GitHub, so whoever needs them I can still provide them easily.
    But I'm unwilling to use the current Steam Workshop to drop old versions that most likely will be unused 1-2 weeks afterwards
    (--> who for example still plays MODDED a17 games ? ? ? --> Unmodded, sure.. But modded? Relative unlikely).

Just my 2 cents..

A few observations from the peanut gallery:

There is a reason why I only play vanilla content; it keeps the responsibility for the product on the manufacturer where it belongs. It is the same reason why my vehicles are stock. If I modify them with after-market products and break them, I have no one to blame but myself.

The game as stated is Early Access. Subject to change frequently and without warning. No one has the right to complain about broken saves with this disclaimer. I have never "finished" a colony because of this, and I probably won't get to finish my current colony, but that is the consequence of beta-testing.

Quote from: Haplo on October 03, 2018, 04:05:03 PM
who for example still plays MODDED a17 games ? ? ? --> Unmodded, sure.. But modded?

*Raises hand*

In most cases, I have no sympathy for someone who complains about an updated mod breaking his savegame that he spent however many hours on, but he can't take a few minutes to copy his mods to another folder so things like that don't happen. There's a sticky on the steam forum that tells you how to do it and I'm sure if you asked on a forum someone would explain to you how to do it.

I'm 68 years old and if I can figure out how to do it, you would think someone who can't remember a time without personal computers could figure it out.

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 03, 2018, 10:57:54 AM
...
But what I am finding in need of adjustment is the team composition. I mean... if you were trying to capture a pawn...would you really go with 6 grenadiers and 7 rocket launchers? I assume you want the prisoner...alive...right? I think such a team should be compromised by Gunners mostly...Although all shooting has an equal chance to kill the target to a certain degree...this example of chasers look more like a "Sapper" team than a group of chasers...
...

I do tend to agree that my immediate reaction is that the raid composition is off.
But it could also be a symptom of a lacking description. The description doesn't really say why the refugee is being chased, only that they are. For all we know the raiders are just a bunch of jerks that are cruelly "having fun" blowing the crap out of one of their prisoners. Or the refugee could be an ex-raider that got kicked out for lighting their base on fire and is now being chase explicitly so they can get some violent revenge.

Quote from: Tsunamy on October 03, 2018, 03:23:45 PM
Tynan, I feel like you're gonna have to bite the bullet here. A lot of the hard-line refusals in this thread so far are also from mod authors who have the most widely used mods. If you don't have them on board, this initiative to discourage in-place updates is doomed.

Tynan asked. He didn't demand. Pretty sure that every mod maker can make their own mind up.

Quote from: Jibbles on October 03, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Marv, from what I've seen it all depends what's on the workshop at the time you upload, if it made to the top etc.  But if it's a small mod (under 8,000) then you'll most likely get about the same amount subs back if it was in the same situation.  However, I can't speak for mods who have like 40,000+ subs, so I understand why they hesitate doing it this way.

Well, since I have some numbers, let me hit you with them... :)

Sometimes Raids Go Wrong B18 peaked at about 23000 subs, 180 days after release. It got up to 20000 of those in just 90 days.

Sometimes Raids Go Wrong A17 peaked at just 6700 subs, 170 days after release. It managed almost 6000 of those in 90 days.

Sometimes Raids Go Wrong A16 peaked at nearly 7500 subs, 86 days after release (this was its debut release). It managed over 4000 of those in just the first 10 days.

If you want these kinds of performance metrics, you have to do separate versions. More importantly though, as long as you put a good mod out there, you shouldn't have to be worried about it not finding a following. 23000 is tiny compared to some of the mods on Workshop, but it's pretty damn significant in its own right. :)

Or, you know, you could not be a prat, and do as the dev just politely asked :P.  Seriously, people, it's NOT an onerous or unreasonable request.

Quote4) A good point, but let's look at it from a different perspective. We're contemplating (previous version) saves breaking vs sending users to chase mods. Currently some percentage of players has to look for mods to accomodate whatever version they're running. What you're suggesting is we make 100% of the userbase chase 100% of their mod list to ensure they have the proper version. Does this really seem like a better, more convenient solution to you?

Put simply, the choice is between:

A) You can continue your old save to completion with your old mods. By the time you're done, mods will have their new version up and you can subscribe to those and start a new game. If you don't want to re-sub you can just keep playing the old version with your old mods as long as you want.

B) Most of your mods break upon the new version and auto-deactivate. Your savegame breaks and cannot be recovered. You are required to make a new savegame. You are required to re-check the mods you want and try to figure out if/when they'll update, and wait for them, or start the game without them. Some of your mods will get separate versions, but it's not clear which, and you have to hunt them down and re-sub to those ones.

As a player experience, A is much, much better.

Loss aversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion): The impact of having things taken from you is much more than the positive impact of getting something.

I do intend to recommend players back up their mod lists before 1.0. But most won't. The vast majority of players never read forums, never read announcements, never post anywhere or contact any of us. Compare the number of commenters vs subscribers on your mods - you'll find the number of subscribers is many, many times more than the number of people you're actually interacting with. If you only pay attention to the people who are interacting, you will miss 95-99% of the actual impact of your mods.

Those are the people I'm trying to draw attention to - the vast silent majority of players who won't get involved in any of this. They just see their game is broken, and then they learn they can never get it back, and they're pissed off. Justifiably.

Having to do work backing up mod files so we don't trash your game feels like work. Now you're burdened with labor to prevent a loss.

Needing to re-sub to mods you want for a new game is not nearly as big a burden as that. Subscribing to mods is a fun interaction; it's like shopping for games but everything is free and instant.

It's true that separating versions is less convenient for mod makers. However mod-makers are outnumbered by players by at least a 1000-to-1 ratio. The huge downside to players, who are extremely numerous, is why I'm recommending against destructive updates.

Look, as a long-time player of RimWorld, I know that I certainly don't represent the entire playerbase, much those of us who install mods, but I figure my opinion is probably similar to the collective one, and might be of some value here. Before I start, a little disclaimer: I don't intend on offending anyone, so my apologies in advance if I say something you don't like, the last thing I want to do is start a flame war, and I certainly don't want to piss off all you wonderful people who add to this game in ways I never thought possible until I saw them myself. I don't develop mods, and I certainly can't relate to the lost progress and subscription numbers, but I do understand the want to keep them. In a perfect world, Steam/Valve would have a system in place to prevent games from being broken across updates. However, they don't. I think Tynan's asking you all to upload a 1.0 version of your mods for more than one reason too, and I don't (personally, bearing in mind that I'm NOT a modder, just a mod-user, so take this with a grain of salt) think that it's all that unreasonable to upload a new version of your mod to the workshop just for 1.0 - it's a big milestone for Tynan and the dev team, it should be for all of you too, an opportunity to add just a little bit more polish to areas of your mods that need it (though, in all honesty, you all do an incredible job, and add a massive amount of enjoyability to an already amazing game.) 1.0 means you can also have a 'version 1.0' of your mods, where they, alongside the game, are a new version, and a new bunch of opportunities.

Onto my other point. As a long-time player (A10 if I remember correctly, I've been around for 3+ years) I've been familiar with mods for a long while, in fact, I only had a few stock playthroughs at first, and usually I have a stock playthrough with each new version. I usually do one playthrough of RimWorld, then don't touch it for a month or so. After that month, I delete all of my mods, and as Tynan mentioned above, I go 'shopping' for the mods I want for my next playthrough. Whether it's EdB's PrepareCarefully to speed up the early game a bit, or a no-raids storyteller for a more laid back playthrough - maybe even Zombieland for an added challenge, or half of fluffy's mods, a bunch from Mehni, and a few from Skully, or any number of mod authors. I can play with anywhere between 10 and 200 mods - then I begin the process of troubleshooting - between finding, downloading (I manually install), and troubleshooting so everything works as it should, I usually spend 2-3 lots of 3-6 hours getting the mods to work, and adding those I forgot, removing incompatibilities, etc. Then I begin my playthrough, and play the colony till it's destroyed, or overpowered to a point at which it is no longer challenging (anywhere from a few hours every day for two weeks, up to two months.)

It's the same process with games I use the workshop for (admittedly, very few) - before I do a playthrough, I wipe the modlist clean, and start again. People following your mods will do exactly the same thing, unless your mod is a staple, which, respectfully, is only very few of you - the rest add flavour, and a lot of good flavour, but it's the QOL mods that are staples - researchtree, hand me that brick, and a whole host of others. Even then, I download them afresh, just in case. My point is, apart from the odd user who plays with only 3-4 mods, all your subscribers will unsubscribe at some point - you may as well upload a new file to the workshop, because anyone who wants and uses your mod will find and subscribe. Or, like me, they'll come here to the forums and install it manually. Your subscriber numbers will be back to the level they were at previously before you even know it. I promise. Ultimately, I'm not a modder, so it's by far, not my decision, but as a player, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable request from Tynan. Again, I don't think you'd be expected to do this for, say, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., just for the big release, 1.0.

Before I go, congrats on 1.0 Tynan! It's been a long time, and I'm sure a mountain and a half of effort in the making, and I'm priveleged to have been a part of it.

Quote
Put simply, the choice is between: ...snip...

This is such a red herring, and yet you keep repeating it. I can easily make up some player experiences that tell the opposite story;

A) You're excited about finally playing RW 1.0. You play a vanilla game to see what it's like now. For your next game, you decide you still want to use some of the mods you played with before, so you open the mod screen, activate them, and are ready to go!

B) You're excited about finally playing RW 1.0. You want to use some of your favourite mods, but you can't, because they've all been taken away from you. You don't know if mods have updated somewhere else, or if their authors have abandoned the mod. You search steam for hours, but you can't find the mods you're looking for. You get frustrated and take it out on RimWorlds' reviews.

As a player experience, A is much, much better.

QuoteLoss aversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion): The impact of having things taken from you is much more than the positive impact of getting something.

Yep, agreed. So don't take away people's mods!

The point is that this is not a modder vs. player argument. It's not about 'lazy' modders breaking peoples savegames. And it's not because modders are vain numberwhores who don't want to see our statistics thrown out.

Steam Workshop as a content delivery system does not deal with versioning. Either way, some players are inconvenienced. We should be focussing on an alternative. Making local copies of mods is such an alternative.

QuoteI do intend to recommend players back up their mod lists before 1.0. But most won't. The vast majority of players never read forums, never read announcements, never post anywhere or contact any of us. Compare the number of commenters vs subscribers on your mods - you'll find the number of subscribers is many, many times more than the number of people you're actually interacting with. If you only pay attention to the people who are interacting, you will miss 95-99% of the actual impact of your mods.

I'm glad you're considering recommending making backups. I'd suggest you put that notification in-game, for players who use mods. It should be trivial to push out a small patch, no?

QuoteBut most won't. The vast majority of players never read forums, never read announcements, never post anywhere or contact any of us. Compare the number of commenters vs subscribers on your mods - you'll find the number of subscribers is many, many times more than the number of people you're actually interacting with.

And yet you're assuming that modders are any different and that you can reach them all just by posting a single thread in ludeon/general? Also, we're aware that people don't read, we've been dealing with the same steam community you have.

QuoteIf you only pay attention to the people who are interacting, you will miss 95-99% of the actual impact of your mods.

Exactly, so why are catering to (what I assume to be) the vocal minority who wants new versions? From what I've seen and heard from my own mods and other modders, most users understand the reason behind updating-in-place, and are fine with it. As Dingo mentioned, auto-updates are the expected behaviour for anything on Steam.

QuoteThose are the people I'm trying to draw attention to - the vast silent majority of players who won't get involved in any of this. They just see their game is broken, and then they learn they can never get it back, and they're pissed off. Justifiably.

Stop with the hyperbole, as this is another red herring. Stuff will get broken no matter what we do, you're just advocating we don't break things for a more vocal group of people. The 'silent majority' doesn't even know about the beta switching button, and will just start a new game.

Quote
Having to do work backing up mod files so we don't trash your game feels like work. Now you're burdened with labor to prevent a loss.

Needing to re-sub to mods you want for a new game is not nearly as big a burden as that. Subscribing to mods is a fun interaction; it's like shopping for games but everything is free and instant.

Bullshit. In my ModManager mod, creating local copies of your entire mod list is literally one click. I spent about two hours on that particular feature. I'm sure you can do something even better in half the time, if you put your mind to it. People with 200+ mods will not enjoy that shopping trip as much as you might think. Not to mention that you're suggesting creating many versions of the same mod, cluttering up search results. Or that all these new versions will break all the item collections out there, creating thousands of zombie collections where it's unclear what version the collection or the mods in it is for.

QuoteIt's true that separating versions is less convenient for mod makers. However mod-makers are outnumbered by players by at least a 1000-to-1 ratio. The huge downside to players, who are extremely numerous, is why I'm recommending against destructive updates.

Yes, it's inconvenient to me. It's also inconvenient to a part of your players. You keep framing this as a modders vs. players argument, but it just isn't. The real problem is how to work around the Workshop's flaws.

As Spock said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Some numbers to put things in perspective.

About 145,000 people are subscribed on Workshop to my most popular mod. I have about 4,000 unique downloads for the A18 version on Nexusmods, and that includes people that downloaded it before A19 came out. So if I don't update on Workshop, 97% of people need to manually dig through Steam's (terrible) workshop interface to find a new version of their favorite mods, and they have to remember what each mod was called to do so.
This is not a reasonable burden to put on the vast majority of players, just so the 3% that stick to an old version of Rimworld are not inconvenienced. That balance seems way off to me.

I'm not unsympathetic to people having their savegames broken (although my mods can be removed without breaking things) but it's far more reasonable for that 3% to spend the two minutes installing the old version from Nexusmods (available simply by clicking on a link on the mod page in-game) and the 97% can just play the enjoy the latest version of Rimworld with all of favorite mods conveniently updated.

We all wish Steam had proper version support but it doesn't, so we have to inconvenience some of the players one way or the other. Better it be a small percentage.

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on October 04, 2018, 03:04:49 AM
..

The goal of doing non-destructive updates is to not break savegames. So yes, it's true that if we ignore that concern entirely, the time savings of reactivating mods versus re-subbing to mods wins out. Not sure why we'd just ignore that concern entirely, though. The many people who came to me furious about last time certainly didn't have the option of ignoring it.

Re-subbing to mods immediately after 1.0 release won't take "hours and hours". I individually checked all 100 mods on Workshop last night; it took 10 minutes. There just won't be that many mods in the early days.

Loss aversion: Non-destructive updates mean we never take away anyone's mods. Nothing is "taken away from you". People can keep playing with their old mods as long as they want on Beta 19. Not taking anything away is the whole point.

I'm not sure why you put "'lazy' modders" in quotes, Fluffy. I've never said such a thing and I never would.

Making local copies is an alternative that works for individuals, but there is no way to make 95% of players do that because there's no way to reach (e.g. spam) them. It's not an alternative, it's a marginal mitigation strategy. I'm taking about normal players, not the 5% who interact on forums.

I can't casually push a patch that pushes messages on people because it'll likely break a lot of mods immediately since the code doesn't compile in a very stable way. Too dangerous.

I'm not assuming I can reach every single modder. But I can reach the ones doing big complex mods that touch code in complex ways. Simple code mods and XML mods will probably all be cross-compatible without changes, so they don't need to be included. Even if it's not every modder, more is better than less.

Terms like "bullshit" are unnecessary, please be civil.

I'd love if there was a straightforward technical solution that would just solve anything, but it's not there so we have to work around imperfect technology. If it becomes necessary in future I hope to look at possibly implementing something better (or cajoling Valve into getting their shit together on the Workshop).

In any case, you're allowed to do what you want. As I said, I'm just putting the request out there; I'd be remiss if it didn't. Especially after last time, when players made it very clear that they were extremely unhappy with what happened. My impression is that a lot of modders weren't really aware the amount of rage that they caused with the in-place updates. You deserve to know, at least.

I am going to point people to NexusMods and the forums to recover old versions of mods that get taken off the Workshop. This will be a weak mitigation.

EDIT: As for mod lists, I'd expect them to be more useful with non-destructive updates. "Best B19 mods" list will thus work forever since the mods don't change. Currently what happens is the mod list ends up full of mixed-version mods (e.g. it's broken) until the author can update it. And if the author is updating it by checking each mod for its update state, the author can equally just make a "Best 1.0 mods" list alongside. That said, I haven't looked deeply into modlists so there may be a detail I'm missing here.

Numbers
There's been some talk of numbers, and the numbers are important so let's ground them in the data we have.

RimWorld peaks at about 10,000 players each (https://store.steampowered.com/stats/) day so I'd guess there's maybe 50,000-100,000 games being played right now. Some significant percentage are modded and that's how many will get permanently trashed by destructive updates. (A few will be able to recover from NexusMods/forums, etc, but there will be tens of thousands that are simply screwed.)

I guess the question is, how many tens of thousands need to be screwed over before this concern wins out? I can see several possible answers, but considering it in the whole I think non-destructive updates are the best recommendation.

Despite the slight inconvenience of re-subbing vs re-activating, it's a lot better to just not take away people's game or their mods. Put simply, totally screwing over a significant group of people to offer a minor convenience to a larger group is the wrong tradeoff IMO.

But, as I said, it's just a recommendation and an attempt to transmit feedback from players. Do with it as you will.

Quote from: Tynan on October 04, 2018, 06:01:45 AM
I'd love if there was a straightforward technical solution that would just solve anything, but it's not there so we have to work around imperfect technology. If it becomes necessary in future I hope to look at possibly implementing something better (or cajoling Valve into getting their shit together on the Workshop).

What's the particular reason why we can't have mods support more than one version simultaneously?  If the 0.19 and 1.0 versions were bundled into the same mod and a tiny amount of metadata told the game which one to load, wouldn't that make everyone happy?

Quote from: YokoZar on October 04, 2018, 06:06:02 AM

Quote from: Tynan on October 04, 2018, 06:01:45 AM
I'd love if there was a straightforward technical solution that would just solve anything, but it's not there so we have to work around imperfect technology. If it becomes necessary in future I hope to look at possibly implementing something better (or cajoling Valve into getting their shit together on the Workshop).

What's the particular reason why we can't have mods support more than one version simultaneously?  If the 0.19 and 1.0 versions were bundled into the same mod and a tiny amount of metadata told the game which one to load, wouldn't that make everyone happy?

There's no reason we can't, it just never came up as a feature request before today. It's in the list :) But a bit too late to solve this local issue.

@All; I've made my thoughts known. I'm going to stop posting here as I'm getting overly frustrated, and it's not helping the discussion. I'll contribute directly in other - more productive - channels.

Tynan, sorry for the 'bullshit' remark; you know where it came from :).

My 1 cent....

At present all mods are at B19? 
all mods are looking to update
you, right now have a copy of B19, why not keep that copy, uplaod it to workshop and then update your mod with the link to B19 in the 1.0 description. (or github* )
This may have been posted already, i don't see the issue :)
I mean you have B19 ALREADY and you ARE about to update to 1.0
Why not just link B19?
If someone wants to continue to play in say, B19 and they see 'mod not working', they go to your steam work shop mod, see the (go here for B19) and they're happy.
and the others that go with the flow get there uninterrupted latest modded game? :)

the game updates, they should expect this to happen when using mods.
ppl that use mods have enough sense to know that the mod works for a version and a new one is coming.
....Though, i bet a lot also pray a modder doesn't just hit *delete version*


Love the mods, Love the game :)

sorry, have to comment on this, but that's kindof the worst of both worlds Bobisme; users still have to look for different versions, and modders still have to maintain multiple steam releases.

Quote from: Tynan on October 04, 2018, 06:01:45 AM
I can't casually push a patch that pushes messages on people because it'll likely break a lot of mods immediately since the code doesn't compile in a very stable way. Too dangerous.

Make a mod that will get added to the Mods folder in a small update. Have code in it that presents a pop-up message in the main menu and lets players click a button to copy all mods. Zero assembly changes and you can remove that mod for 1.0 when you release.

If I came up with this solution as I was reading this line I have to assume you've not spent time considering alternatives.

~Not a modder (at least not on Rimworld), just a user of tons of mods.

I like the update in place argument, but it only breaks the scale for me by a tiny margin. The way I went from B17 > B19 was looking at my subscribed items on steam for Rimworld and then systematically going down the list, opening each mod page. This wasn't necessary for B19 labeled mods that were updated in place, but I did it anyway, just to read the latest comments and see if there were any game breaking issues with the update. This honestly needs to be done by anyone who is modding their game, so I don't see it as a time waste or an inconvenience. In that way, the only difference between in place and uploading to a new page is that I would have to open a new window, unsubscribe from the first and subscribe to the next (an extra 5-10 seconds). Some outdated mods that hadn't updated in place (or updated at all), I simply left myself subscribed to so I would have them on my in game modlist should they be updated in place, or so I could look back at them later and see if the author linked to a new version.

Now, as far as people still playing the old version... I play quite a lot on each of my playthroughs, but coming as someone who has played a ton of hours of modded games (Bethesda suite, etc) and being used to losing quite a lot of progress to silly game corruptions and the like -- it honestly doesn't affect me losing my time by my save being broke. I'll end up not playing Rimworld for a while anyway after the new update (hence my transition from B17 and not playing during B18 because I didn't want to take on the slog of finding updated mods). I considered coming back to the game several times, but being midway through B18's life cycle, I figured there would be a patch coming along any day to ruin the work spent putting everything together -- so I just waited for the news of B19's release to begin again. I see 1.0 being very similar for me.

I suppose this is where the counter argument to updating in place comes into play, since in order to play the game the way I want to (with certain mods) and not having to wait several weeks to a month first for updates, I would need to continue to play on B19, whilst making sure that update in place authors mods were accounted for each time I load the game. But honestly, it's not that big of a deal. When you load a modded game, it tells you if you don't have the mods required so:

1. I find out what is missing.
2. I go to the workshop page.
3. If the author has a link to the older version, I go there, manually download (or subscribe, depending on the author)
4. Keep playing.

If they don't keep the old version somewhere -- well, that sucks, but that's not what the mod authors in this thread are advocating for. They actively keep github links and old releases in their threads on this forum and it isn't hard to find these things with simple google searches.

(This is all assuming I don't back up all of my mods manually... which I've already done.)

Quite honestly, I feel that authors have put in quite enough of their time setting their mod up the first time. As a measure of the gratitude I feel toward them for their awesome content, I see no issue at all with having to do the minuscule amount of work to keep my own mod list tidy. (and my list is over 100 mods)

Quote from: Dingo on October 04, 2018, 11:18:45 AM
...
Make a mod that will get added to the Mods folder in a small update. Have code in it that presents a pop-up message in the main menu and lets players click a button to copy all mods. Zero assembly changes and you can remove that mod for 1.0 when you release.

If I came up with this solution as I was reading this line I have to assume you've not spent time considering alternatives.

Or your solution won't work as well as you think it will. Not saying that is actually the case, but it is a much better assumption than insulting the Dev.

Setting up a new mod on Workshop isn't really a chore. I don't know why people make it seem like it is. That being said, I'm used to it, so I can see why it would seem daunting to someone who is used to just updating in place.

There's a mod called PublisherPlus which improves the upload process, though I dunno if it works with 1.0 yet.

Quote from: MarvinKosh on October 04, 2018, 12:06:35 PM
Setting up a new mod on Workshop isn't really a chore. I don't know why people make it seem like it is. That being said, I'm used to it, so I can see why it would seem daunting to someone who is used to just updating in place.

In the past I can see how it would be, given that there are 19 different versions of the game all with their own idiosyncrasies and workarounds that mods must implement (and some mods made irrelevant by the updates, even).

At some point we need to draw the line and end support for Betas less than, say, 18, and tell people to just play the new game. I can't believe that enough people still play builds more than 2 versions ago, what with all the things that got brought into the game afterwards.

Reducing the chore of having to manage 10 versions to more like 2-3 seems like it's worth the hassle of having distinct Workshop items for each.

I mean, Microsoft had an entire media campaign that literally said "STOP USING IE 6" because it was wasting their support budget trying to deal with those folks.

Unless the claim is that nothing significant changes from B19 to 1.0 that a B19 mod would poop the sheets over. I'm sure plenty of modders are already running their B19 packs on the 1.0 build just to validate/refute that claim.

Yeah. My approach to multiple versions on Workshop has been to hide some of the really old versions, which means that they aren't searchable, but they aren't immediately yanked from users' mod folders. Then after a while I can delete those old versions. If someone is still playing Alpha 15 or something, they can pick up a direct download of one of my mods on my site (which actually goes all the way back beyond the Steam release).

I also turn off notifications for old versions, because I need to focus on issues with new versions more the old.

This approach means that I still only have 48 items on Workshop (some of those are hidden). Of those I'm actively supporting maybe a handful, with an occasional glance at the older versions in case someone lands on the wrong version.

Just a player who often plays with mods here, but I can relate to what Tynan is saying - I have had saves break between versions because I forgot to backup and the prospect of hunting down all the right old versions through GitHub and forum posts didn't (for me) seem worth it since Randy might just kill me within 5 minutes of getting that save fixed anyway, and I actually enjoy starting over. That said, I think there are pros and cons to both of these arguments, but probably a bit of bias for most of the people here on the forum. Most of the people here probably understand modding enough to know to take certain steps to avoid this. But, for better or worse, steam workshop makes modding so 'easy' that a huge amount of players who otherwise probably wouldn't mod their games at all can just shop down a list of cool things and click the ones they want. I do myself have friends like this. And when the version changes and their mods get all effed up, and their understanding of mods doesn't go much farther than 'scroll, subscribe, and play' they don't understand what is going on and probably get really frustrated.

Whereas before in the old days of modding you had to have a bit of an understanding of what you were actually doing, steam has made it essentially 'mods for dummies', and honestly I can feel for both people here. On the one side modders are doing this unpaid and making some amazing stuff that makes everyone's game better, but the integration in steam workshop is seamless (but certainly not perfect) enough that mods can start to come across as almost part of the game, or 'toggleable expansions' in a way that when they break, someone who doesn't know better might dump their losses on Tynan. And we probably won't hear from them here, so I do feel like Tynan is doing his due diligence to give voice to a group that exists but isn't as participatory in the forum, the githubs etc.

Just my two cents!

Quote from: Strawcave on October 04, 2018, 02:29:52 PM
Whereas before in the old days of modding you had to have a bit of an understanding
[...] 
steam has made it essentially 'mods for dummies'
[...]
mods can start to come across as almost part of the game

I've been wanting to share my thoughts, and this comment is about as good a time as any.

I don't feel like it's unreasonable, to expect people to understand that a mod is made by someone (or a group) who is not the official game developers. Steam shows that, for example, Expanded Prosthetics and Organ Engineering is created by somebody named Ykara. This is clearly different from Ludeon Studios, first just by the name being different, and secondly because when you click on a game developer in steam, it lists all the games they've made. Clicking on a Steam user brings you to a page which looks very different - their Steam user-profile. I don't expect people downloading mods via Steams easy integration to have technical know-how of the modding process or ecosystem, but I do expect them to understand that the modder is a person separate from the game developer / company. If a mod auto-updates and breaks a person's save-game, then the problem is between the modder and that person.

Paraphrasing someone earlier in this thread, nobody would expect the Ford motor company to fix a problem on a truck, caused by an after-market product like a winch!

Quote from: AileTheAlien on October 04, 2018, 02:49:26 PM

Quote from: Strawcave on October 04, 2018, 02:29:52 PM
mods can start to come across as almost part of the game

Paraphrasing someone earlier in this thread, nobody would expect the Ford motor company to fix a problem on a truck, caused by an after-market product like a winch!

"Hey there CEO of Ford, I painted my car lime green and showed some other people how to paint their cars lime green and now I demand a say in the colour of the next car you make."

@MarvinKosh, hunting your mods is an issue to me. I have to pay attention to the discord, the forum and the workshop for updates, it misses the whole point of having steam automatically handle the updates. So every time I want to start a colony, I have to check docens of red mods, one by one for updates. Sometimes they aren't even in the workshop. I subscribed for automatic updates, not a single download.

You may be making it easier to a segment of the population but you are making it harder for the other segment.

Then what happens when that segment is done with their save and want to start another one? They have to hunt for updates again. In the end everyone got inconvenienced.

Hang on are we going to version 1.0 without hand and foot armour? eww

Hi everyone,

while you guys were busy discussing things back and forth, I decided to actually do something and create a third option: have your mods work with 0.19 and 1.0 at the same time.

I made a gist for a class that you simply add to your mod and it will allow you to continue to use the old Translator.Translate() method plus you can already mark your mod as 1.0 version in the About.xml so that the new Rimworld will not show is as incompatible. At the same time, it contains a patch to let the old Rimworld believe it is compatible too.

This does not solve ALL problems you might have with your code working with both Rimworld versions but it did work for my more complex mods like Achtung or Zombieland. I will continue testing them on both code bases and it is not very hard to build dynamic workarounds like the one I made for Translate.

Here is the gist: https://gist.github.com/pardeike/ba995510a468c00ce54091183a2f4aca (https://gist.github.com/pardeike/ba995510a468c00ce54091183a2f4aca)

One thing is missing and it some kind of request from me to you Tynan: allow us to have both, 0.19 and 1.0 tags in steam workshop for such mods. It is the least you can do for all the work I put into this.

My 2 cents
Andreas Pardeike aka Brrainz


[EDIT] I just converted all my 10 mods to this system and got the to start on 1.0 without errors. Does not mean they run without errors but all the Harmony patches and init code ran without problems.

(https://ibin.co/w800/4HyxXAE3eRRc.png) (https://ibin.co/w800/4HyxqpkWh4Em.png)

@AileTheAlien honestly I completely agree that's how it should be, but I feel like people often just complain to the person they gave money to even when they screw something up. Like how many people does Apple have to turn away coming in with 'suddenly broken phones' that are actually water damaged from dropping it in a sink or pool, or why does Red Bull actually have to say 'Red bull does not actually give you real wings'. Tynan can try to solve this problem by telling people how and why to backup their mods, but if that won't stop the majority of people from still messing up and complaining it's worth at least trying a more upstream solution like what is in his OP. It's kind of like how Apple can tell people in the manual 'don't get your phone wet', but if they had a realistic way of working with pool and sink manufacturers so that you actually can't drop a phone in a pool or sink, they probably would try just to avoid all of the time spent telling people it's their fault the phone isn't working.

Again I also totally see the mod makers side of this argument and it's definitely multifaceted. My main point was that we probably aren't going to hear from any of the people Tynan is talking about here in the forum so it's probably going to be a bit of an echo chamber.

Can we be allowed to forbid passive coolers....

or do I have to wait for a mod for it.

Quote from: blerkz on October 04, 2018, 04:28:17 AM
So if I don't update on Workshop, 97% of people need to manually dig through Steam's (terrible) workshop interface to find a new version of their favorite mods

New versions are super simple to find as long as the mod has the version number in the name. Go to old version. Click on mod author name. Find new version. Some authors also have a link to the new version on the old page.

If I truly like a mod and think I need it for my enjoyment (and there are quite a few of those) I will remember the name and can find it through the searchbox too.
It didn't take me long to update most of my mods when I switched from B18 to B19. I can see some other arguments against maintaining two versions (such as people asking to fix bugs in old versions), but that one doesn't really work for me

Overall, I really, really like Steam for auto-updating mods, but a new version of the game is an instance where I understand that some manual intervention may be needed. As long as it's not too often

Quote from: zizard on October 04, 2018, 05:14:04 PM
Hang on are we going to version 1.0 without hand and foot armour? eww

Not if you make a mod for it :P

Quote from: Third_Of_Five on October 04, 2018, 06:46:10 PM

Quote from: zizard on October 04, 2018, 05:14:04 PM
Hang on are we going to version 1.0 without hand and foot armour? eww

Not if you make a mod for it :P

I suppose that's the problem with EA games. Can never be sure if they will actually be completed or just released.

Quote from: zizard on October 04, 2018, 07:26:41 PM

Quote from: Third_Of_Five on October 04, 2018, 06:46:10 PM

Quote from: zizard on October 04, 2018, 05:14:04 PM
Hang on are we going to version 1.0 without hand and foot armour? eww

Not if you make a mod for it :P

I suppose that's the problem with EA games. Can never be sure if they will actually be completed or just released.

Why specify EA in that? It's not like AAA games are released with every feature users could ever want. Or every user would reasonably expect.

Quote from: 5thHorseman on October 04, 2018, 08:10:31 PM
Why specify EA in that? It's not like AAA games are released with every feature users could ever want. Or every user would reasonably expect.

Non-EA games are judged by their content when the game becomes available. EA games are (understandably) cut slack during development, assuming that incomplete content will be finished and a guesttimated amount of new features will be added. The problem is that that content may never materialise.

Quote from: notfood on October 04, 2018, 04:12:13 PM
@MarvinKosh, hunting your mods is an issue to me. I have to pay attention to the discord, the forum and the workshop for updates, it misses the whole point of having steam automatically handle the updates.

I usually always post to all the applicable places - Twitter, Patreon, Discord, the Marvin's Stuff topic on Ludeon forums, and the Steam Workshop comments for the mod when I have a test version available.

And then when I have a stable version, it's all of those plus Reddit and my site's mailing list.

I'm sorry that all of my mods aren't on Workshop right away, but some of them need a longer testing period before they're released. Usually, it's just me testing the mods, despite the availability of test versions.

All of my Workshop mods have links to navigate to the new version if it's available, and the game version it is for is on the thumbnail.

I think I've done all I reasonably can to make it as convenient as possible despite the lack of in-place updates. If you want only in-place updates, there are mod makers who do that. Go subscribe to their mods instead.

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on October 02, 2018, 04:26:46 PM
Someone much smarter than me said it like this;
Imagine if a guy owned a hotel and I came every day and cleaned for free. So people like his hotel and pay him more. I do this for years. Now the hotel owner comes and tells me I'm cleaning wrong and please clean more of the rooms? For free. Just bc he said so.

I'd like to add that the hotel owner also did so without thanking me for my labour, or asking me for my opinion. Does that seem right? I never asked nor expected to be paid, and I don't need any thanks - but this is just rubbing me the wrong way.

Hey princess,
if I a thing or two about modders, it's that they usually can't code a game engine (or it would take them a prohibitively long time). So a game they can mod is actually a golden opportunity for them because they have this urge to make a game but can't code (or manage a team) well enough to realize it.

Using your analogy, this would mean some people who come to a hotel and organize table tennis tournaments, karaoke, stage plays (or LARPs - for acting school dropouts). Yes, it does make the hotel more attractive for some people and draws some more people in, but also puts some constraints on the hotel owner. If he executes his right to rent rooms and space however he pleases, he risks annoying some customers, who come there not exactly for typical hotel attractions but for something else organized by some customers on their own.
And the tournament/karaoke/stage/drawing lessons organizers can't build houses, can't afford to pay them done, can't afford to rent some attractive space on their own. They threaten to pick up their toys and go somewhere else.
Only in reality, there aren't many places they can go, because Rimworld is one of the few hotels that allow customers such a degree of freedom, with a large garden and liberal staff. They couldn't find a place just like Rimworld.

Because how many other moddable sci-fi colony simulation games are there? How moddable is Dwarf Fortress? Factorio - even if it is (no idea), you'd have to fit in into their industrial setting.

Chill b0rsuk we're all friends here.

Quote from: Brrainz on October 04, 2018, 05:21:21 PM
Hi everyone,

while you guys were busy discussing things back and forth, I decided to actually do something and create a third option: have your mods work with 0.19 and 1.0 at the same time.

[...]

Wow, awesome work. I'll check it out. For me it always felt like choosing between two bad options so I'm really glad you came up with a third.

Quote from: Brrainz on October 04, 2018, 05:21:21 PM
Hi everyone,

while you guys were busy discussing things back and forth, I decided to actually do something and create a third option: have your mods work with 0.19 and 1.0 at the same time.

I love the idea. Hoping to put in obsolete-marked (but working) versions of the old Translate methods into 1.0 so nobody needs to do this.

I'd sort of assumed that it wouldn't really be possible to make a complex mod work on both versions because I've had some experiences before where the slightest code change would cause mods to totally fail to link to the EXE. However what I'm seeing now is that things are a lot more robust than they used to be. So it might just work.

EDIT: Okay, ison has resurrected the old Translate() method. It doesn't seem to conflict with the new ones so I just pushed a build with it included. I'd love to hear that B19 mods just work on 1.0, if anyone wants to try theirs out. Obviously the most ideal outcome would be for the mods to just work!

Now we're making progress. Thanks Tynan!
I still want to know if we can have multiple version tags on steam. Not necessarily directly from RimWorlds Upload Mod function but more as a policy that allows us to have them so that Ramsis does not clean them away. There is an advanced release script for us modders with many mods that can easily provide multiple version tags on a steam release.

I've certainly got no issue with anyone tagging their mod with all the versions it supports.

Only reason game doesn't allow it yet is because it never came up until the last few days.

I can report that my own B19 mods loaded into 1.0 without any issues. :)

My mods also load without errors! Great work guys!

QuoteThere is an advanced release script for us modders with many mods that can easily provide multiple version tags on a steam release.

@Brrainz. I'm unaware of this script. Could you specify? I'm likely not the only one unaware so it would be nice if we could just provide a list with the versions our mod supports in the about.xml, will you add that Tynan?

I plan to do multi-version About.xml in future, but after content lock it's too late for new features. We have to be strict about this otherwise we'd never release (or have bugs on release).

Glad to hear compatibility has improved! I'd be interested if anyone could note a mod that is not compatible between builds. I used to think compatibility was very fragile but maybe it's actually reasonably robust after all.

Some kind of change log that mentions classes or at least some technical area overview of what differs between 0.19 and 1.0 would help to pinpoint the mods most affected. Maybe there is a way to decompile and diff both versions and post the result at a place where many mod authors can see it.

re: fragility; renaming and moving methods is usually what breaks things, not so much the actual changes (unless obviously the whole logic of the system affected changes). I've got at least one mod that will probably break, but that's on me for using named reflection on compiler generated methods.

This is also why I mentioned moving the Translate overloads as an example of you breaking mod compatibility, glad to see that's been fixed. I'll try and get some 1.0 version up asap, been a bit busy lately.

The game keeps failing when heavy bleeding pawns choose to have some recreation while painting my rooms with their blood and both "Patient" and "Bed Rest" are set to priority 1, when a player would want them to go get patched up asap. If any of my characters get Infection, I just Dev Mode > Remove Hediff because of this.

Janie's Got A Gun. Her whole worlds come undone...

(https://i.imgur.com/vTEDeoC.png)

...and you can clearly see her fire a LMG...both sides of a wall...

From looking straight at the sun. What did her daddy do? What did he put you through? They said when Janie got arrested,  they found him underneath a train...

Chipping in to the discussion as a player, with a good number of mods in use, I currently have around 40 mods subscribed, I have had up to triple digits before (0.19 reduced my need for many mods).

Personally, I prefer mods to update properly, if I have to take a few weeks off to give modders a chance to update, that's fine. I've got other things to play while that happens, you know, fun things? Unlike going through my mods and checking every one for "is there an updated version? Unsubscribe -> Subscribe new" Which I have spent hours doing before, and it's not fun.

If an update breaks saves... well tough luck, that's what you get for a pre-release game. Stop whinging and go start a new colony.

Thank you to all the modders that update their steam workshop mods so I don't have to go digging for new versions. Though I have seen some that update their mods to the new version, AND put the old version up as a new mod. That seems the best method if you want to let people keep using the old version.

Quote from: Tynan on October 05, 2018, 10:23:41 AM
I plan to do multi-version About.xml in future, but after content lock it's too late for new features. We have to be strict about this otherwise we'd never release (or have bugs on release).

Glad to hear compatibility has improved! I'd be interested if anyone could note a mod that is not compatible between builds. I used to think compatibility was very fragile but maybe it's actually reasonably robust after all.

I haven't looked through my entire code yet but apart from the translation stuff my mod is actually incompatible between version because the HiveUtility class was renamed to HivesUtility (or the other way around, I'm not on my PC right now). This change breaks my assembly file since I'm using the class in my code.

Quote from: Daimonin on October 06, 2018, 03:19:58 AM
...
Unlike going through my mods and checking every one for "is there an updated version? Unsubscribe -> Subscribe new" Which I have spent hours doing before, and it's not fun.
...

Since when is mod management suppose to be fun?
Its suppose to be effective, fun doesn't fall into the equation.

Quote from: Daimonin on October 06, 2018, 03:19:58 AM
...
If an update breaks saves... well tough luck, that's what you get for a pre-release game. Stop whinging and go start a new colony.

Thank you to all the modders that update their steam workshop mods so I don't have to go digging for new versions.
...

... The modders who didn't want to support older versions of their mods were the ones whining here.
I swear... The Dev expresses a desire to get help to support backwards compatibility in modded saves and he gets chewed out for it. The lack of respect is palpable.

Erdrik enough baiting or you're going to be pushing against rules I will have to warn and potentially punish you for. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion on the matter but starting fights over opinions is something I have 0 interest in tolerating. Everyone gets respect here, you know that in and out my friend.

What about changelog? Is it available somwhere or will it be?

Quote from: Albion on October 06, 2018, 04:10:28 AM
I haven't looked through my entire code yet but apart from the translation stuff my mod is actually incompatible between version because the HiveUtility class was renamed to HivesUtility (or the other way around, I'm not on my PC right now). This change breaks my assembly file since I'm using the class in my code.

There are clever ways to get around this problem. For example the helper classes in Harmony that create dynamic delegates for methods. You can do a type lookup to find out if a certain class exists and create your method delegates from that or from the alternative class. Talk to me in the Harmony discord if you are interested.

Eww, reflection.

Tynan, consider delaying 1.0 until you can put in multi-version support in for mods. It sounds like this is the best compromise possibly available.

It would invalidate this entire in-place update debate, and to be honest, it seems like a feature that SHOULD be in the first release version, because this change will change mod structure completely.

I think that will have to wait until the next version. People playing modded RimWorld should know to switch to the beta 19 branch, back up their mods, and wait.

However as we discovered, mod compatibility between versions of RimWorld isn't as big a problem as it was thought.

I know everyone is trying to play nice but seriously the early access then alpha then beta tags were all plastered over the games store page and the forums and websites along with the passage that updates would be frequent and game saves may end up not working upon updating or if a new version comes out...if people can not read this and realise what it means then they should really go get glasses because they have absolutely no reason to winge about it. WE all know that there is a potential for our save games to break yet we play it no matter what and if they break when an update happens then we just start again O R we just sit and wait for 1.0

I can understand that people invest a lot of time in there game and feel very passionate about it but at the end of the day we play rimworld because we love it so restarting isn't a problem because the majority of us would most likely restart if our save was to die from raiders or toxic fallout or even if we beat the game because this game has so much replayability so we can all enjoy it over and over.

So all those words wrapped up sums up to "saves die? no worries just start again" YAY

Quote from: matheryn on October 08, 2018, 09:58:19 PM
I know everyone is trying to play nice but seriously the early access then alpha then beta tags were all plastered over the games store page and the forums and websites along with the passage that updates would be frequent and game saves may end up not working upon updating or if a new version comes out...if people can not read this and realise what it means then they should really go get glasses because they have absolutely no reason to winge about it. WE all know that there is a potential for our save games to break yet we play it no matter what and if they break when an update happens then we just start again O R we just sit and wait for 1.0

I can understand that people invest a lot of time in there game and feel very passionate about it but at the end of the day we play rimworld because we love it so restarting isn't a problem because the majority of us would most likely restart if our save was to die from raiders or toxic fallout or even if we beat the game because this game has so much replayability so we can all enjoy it over and over.

So all those words wrapped up sums up to "saves die? no worries just start again" YAY

I agree with you 100%. Anybody playing any Early Access game and getting bent out of shape for a corrupted save file for any reason should be treated with all the ire a community can muster.

However, you must remember that our livelihoods are not dependent on these people's reviews on Steam keeping others from buying the game, while Ludeon IS dependent on it. It is in their best interest to not break saves even though they said it might happen.

However AGAIN, I don't think broken saves between EA and 1.0 because of mods would be a big PR problem.

Appliances break but no notification letter, cannot prioritize usage of Components.

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 09, 2018, 07:58:48 AM
Appliances break but no notification letter, cannot prioritize usage of Components.

The first was an intentional change, and the second I don't know about. Are you saying you frequently had enough stuff breaking down that you forbade some broken down things to instead fix others when low on components?

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 09, 2018, 07:58:48 AM
Appliances break but no notification letter, cannot prioritize usage of Components.

I noticed this as well. This is no good, there should be a message. I prefer the one like meat rotting in the storage gives.

Quote from: 5thHorseman on October 09, 2018, 08:04:44 AM

Are you saying you frequently had enough stuff breaking down that you forbade some broken down things to instead fix others when low on components?

Well...I don't know you but to me B19 & v1.0 has made RimWorld a resource scarce plus ultra-mega-hyper grinding game. You have very little components and at the same time absolutely everything requires components... even regular prosthetics...and all three flak armors...I don't understand why flak gear requires components...

Then even IED traps require double the shells compared to previous versions.

I am currently past day 200, and with 13 pawns, half of them are already Robocop like. I have 6 Thrumbo horns stored since forever but no exotic traders come to pick them up...and sell prices are 2/5... which makes profiting extremely hard...and I'm minimalistic and none greedy, I hardly spend money or build luxurious stuff.

In a Temperate Forest map, I already had a Toxic Fallout & 3 Cold Snaps, Mechanoids make limbs fly like winter levees and hardly had proper protection before the harder threats come in.

Pathfinding is still awful and tons of bugs are still unattended... I don't understand how version 1.0 can come out this month... either the entire community has already given up on Tynan or he ignores everybody else, as in all veteran/expert players/pro-testers...
The latest update is the Food priority setting...pets still eat my Fine Meals and zone restricting sucks, I don't understand why we cant get proper Home Freezers where meals are stored at a height pets won't reach...

Honestly, I'm just running a test game because I overlook the wiki content, but as a player I'm no longer interested in this game and you can see in my Steam account that I spend my gaming time in other titles already... By the way...in Civilization VI, there is a feature in which you can pair up units...a frequently requested feature for RW too for those who die on Predator Attacks...which is kinda prohibited by law in decency gaming...

I posted earlier than the LMG fires on two different sides of a wall...which is impossible in real life, even with 100 miss chance, you just cant shoot to the opposite side of a wall when aiming in a single direction...ufff I will never end with all the problems currently affecting the game...but somehow no change logs around that leaves everybody with insights completely baffled on how much Tynan actually cares for feedback... and I'm a 5.000+hs in game user...

Plasteel from disassembled mechaoids is 5 for the small ones and 10 for the bigger ones... I never ever had so little resources... Apparently Tynan was trying to make it harder for the "Never ship launch - eternal stay" players but... that resulted in paining the fast launch players instead.

To me, everything looks completely messed up that I have been abstaining from doing proper bug reports because I don't know how much seriousness is left in Ludeon Studios... I don't understand why I'm the only one in the forums commenting like this... Did everybody else already leave?

There's zero issues with getting components in v1.0, what are you even talking about?

You can make them and you can trade them and you can mine them. What is the issue?

I think that this call for modders is useless right now... Maybe in A15 or before, if it was implemented then... It could have avoided problems. But now? What does it matter doing it just once more?

Content complete, well yeah maybe, but there's still lot of QoL and bugfixing around[like refuel passive cooler, take from specified stockpile option, and many many more]. Although as far as content complete, the game without mods is quite shallow, so keeping the good mod support is vital for this game being able to deliver pleasant experience.

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 09, 2018, 08:51:48 AM

Quote from: 5thHorseman on October 09, 2018, 08:04:44 AM

Are you saying you frequently had enough stuff breaking down that you forbade some broken down things to instead fix others when low on components?

Well...I don't know you but to me B19 & v1.0 has made RimWorld a resource scarce plus ultra-mega-hyper grinding game. You have very little components and at the same time absolutely everything requires components... even regular prosthetics...and all three flak armors...I don't understand why flak gear requires components...

Then even IED traps require double the shells compared to previous versions.

I am currently past day 200, and with 13 pawns, half of them are already Robocop like. I have 6 Thrumbo horns stored since forever but no exotic traders come to pick them up...and sell prices are 2/5... which makes profiting extremely hard...and I'm minimalistic and none greedy, I hardly spend money or build luxurious stuff.

In a Temperate Forest map, I already had a Toxic Fallout & 3 Cold Snaps, Mechanoids make limbs fly like winter levees and hardly had proper protection before the harder threats come in.

Pathfinding is still awful and tons of bugs are still unattended... I don't understand how version 1.0 can come out this month... either the entire community has already given up on Tynan or he ignores everybody else, as in all veteran/expert players/pro-testers...
The latest update is the Food priority setting...pets still eat my Fine Meals and zone restricting sucks, I don't understand why we cant get proper Home Freezers where meals are stored at a height pets won't reach...

Honestly, I'm just running a test game because I overlook the wiki content, but as a player I'm no longer interested in this game and you can see in my Steam account that I spend my gaming time in other titles already... By the way...in Civilization VI, there is a feature in which you can pair up units...a frequently requested feature for RW too for those who die on Predator Attacks...which is kinda prohibited by law in decency gaming...

I posted earlier than the LMG fires on two different sides of a wall...which is impossible in real life, even with 100 miss chance, you just cant shoot to the opposite side of a wall when aiming in a single direction...ufff I will never end with all the problems currently affecting the game...but somehow no change logs around that leaves everybody with insights completely baffled on how much Tynan actually cares for feedback... and I'm a 5.000+hs in game user...

Plasteel from disassembled mechaoids is 5 for the small ones and 10 for the bigger ones... I never ever had so little resources... Apparently Tynan was trying to make it harder for the "Never ship launch - eternal stay" players but... that resulted in paining the fast launch players instead.

To me, everything looks completely messed up that I have been abstaining from doing proper bug reports because I don't know how much seriousness is left in Ludeon Studios... I don't understand why I'm the only one in the forums commenting like this... Did everybody else already leave?

maybe you should learn to wealth control since spamming bionics recklessly is heavily punished in b19. Its possible that for highly damaged individuals its better to kick them from the colony, spend more than 10k wealth per colonist and you going to have problems.

Instead of spending resources on making useless/counterproductive bionics you can gift it to outlanders, spam caravan and soon you end up with overflowing plast

For fastest victory I am convinced that ship journey on standard 30% settings is the better option for all 4 starts. There are people winning in less than an year on merciless.

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 09, 2018, 08:51:48 AM

Quote from: 5thHorseman on October 09, 2018, 08:04:44 AM

Are you saying you frequently had enough stuff breaking down that you forbade some broken down things to instead fix others when low on components?

Well...I don't know you but to me B19 & v1.0 has made RimWorld a resource scarce plus ultra-mega-hyper grinding game. You have very little components and at the same time absolutely everything requires components... even regular prosthetics...and all three flak armors...I don't understand why flak gear requires components...

Then even IED traps require double the shells compared to previous versions.

But, amusingly, no components anymore.

I actually don't have a TON of problems with resources. Of course you need to get them and need to get a lot of them but that's part of the game. It'd be like complaining that your colonists get mood breaks. Of course people also complain about that but I find that funny too.

If you make sure you only make what you need - and with the super high-end stuff like marine armor and bionics sometimes just do without - then yes, you can get by on the number of components you make, dig up, and trade for.

In the end game I frequently empty every caravan and trade ship of every component, advanced component, and piece of plasteel they sell. I sometimes buy their steel as well. I pay for it with art, leather, drugs, clothing, and guns I take off the raiders who die in my kill zones. I don't think this is odd or "gamey" I think it's part of the normal progression of the game.

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 09, 2018, 08:51:48 AM
To me, everything looks completely messed up that I have been abstaining from doing proper bug reports because I don't know how much seriousness is left in Ludeon Studios... I don't understand why I'm the only one in the forums commenting like this... Did everybody else already leave?

Most people only play to make stupid memes about people romancing themselves and ate without table. The developers know their audience well. It is more worth to spend time on the random meme generator.

Quote from: Alenerel on October 09, 2018, 02:53:27 PM
I think that this call for modders is useless right now... Maybe in A15 or before, if it was implemented then... It could have avoided problems. But now? What does it matter doing it just once more?

Obviously release $$$.

Quote from: zizard on October 09, 2018, 07:19:14 PM

Quote from: Alenerel on October 09, 2018, 02:53:27 PM
I think that this call for modders is useless right now... Maybe in A15 or before, if it was implemented then... It could have avoided problems. But now? What does it matter doing it just once more?

Obviously release $$$.

How? People who buy it after release will never have a problem with mod version incompatibilities. Its the people who already paid who have this problem.

Quote from: Alenerel on October 09, 2018, 11:34:36 PM

Quote from: zizard on October 09, 2018, 07:19:14 PM

Quote from: Alenerel on October 09, 2018, 02:53:27 PM
I think that this call for modders is useless right now... Maybe in A15 or before, if it was implemented then... It could have avoided problems. But now? What does it matter doing it just once more?

Obviously release $$$.

How? People who buy it after release will never have a problem with mod version incompatibilities. Its the people who already paid who have this problem.

If I was on the fence buying a game, waiting for it to be released, and then found out it had terrible mod intercompatibilities and everybody was mad, I just might go buy the next game on my list instead.

I think the new armor changes may make killing animals, thrombo in particular, too easy. They don't seem to negate damage much, and are easy to kill with bows.

Quote from: Alenerel on October 09, 2018, 11:34:36 PM

Quote from: zizard on October 09, 2018, 07:19:14 PM
Obviously release $$$.

How? People who buy it after release will never have a problem with mod version incompatibilities. Its the people who already paid who have this problem.

What 5th said. So that when someone hears about the release and asks their friend who plays RW the reply is "it's great look at my base", rather than "I'm waiting for mods to update". Then they might forget about it.

Thing is they will hear incompatibilities about the beta,  in each release. After 1.0 I think there will be more or less 2-3 releases, and very far apart, that probably wont even break anything at all.

I haven't had any of the problems these people are describing. Resources are plentiful, trade is much better than it ever was, missions are finally somewhat balanced and possible to go on, pathing is very improved...

I think these people whining are just people who have 40 mods installed. Vanilla RimWorld is the best it's ever been.

Quote from: vzoxz0 on October 10, 2018, 07:09:18 AM
I haven't had any of the problems these people are describing. Resources are plentiful, trade is much better than it ever was, missions are finally somewhat balanced and possible to go on, pathing is very improved...

I think these people whining are just people who have 40 mods installed. Vanilla RimWorld is the best it's ever been.

Ya, not to mention he straight up built the top 10 mods right in to the game for 1.0 haha. Lot of QoL additions. But vanilla is still an incredible game! Making Caravans viable in particular is a huge thing.

Quote from: vzoxz0 on October 10, 2018, 07:09:18 AM
I haven't had any of the problems these people are describing. Resources are plentiful, trade is much better than it ever was, missions are finally somewhat balanced and possible to go on, pathing is very improved...

I think these people whining are just people who have 40 mods installed. Vanilla RimWorld is the best it's ever been.

I agree, if you have an income resource, be it art, drugs, furniture, or whatever, you can buy resources from traders. Beer for components and steel is a good deal to me.

Quote from: zizard on October 09, 2018, 07:19:14 PM

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 09, 2018, 08:51:48 AM
To me, everything looks completely messed up that I have been abstaining from doing proper bug reports because I don't know how much seriousness is left in Ludeon Studios... I don't understand why I'm the only one in the forums commenting like this... Did everybody else already leave?

Most people only play to make stupid memes about people romancing themselves and ate without table. The developers know their audience well. It is more worth to spend time on the random meme generator.

r/rimworld is all about memes, much less about strategy or rimworld mechanics theorycrafting. Rimworld has quite a lot of mechanics which doesnt interact well with the game, or are either unfinished/unfilled/nonsensical. Its still unique since theres nothing like that in this genre[dwarf fortress has terrible graphics, that put off lot of people, factorio is basically logistics simulator, not survival simulator].

Quote from: bbqftw on October 09, 2018, 03:17:11 PM

maybe you should learn to wealth control since spamming bionics recklessly is heavily punished in b19. Its possible that for highly damaged individuals its better to kick them from the colony, spend more than 10k wealth per colonist and you going to have problems.

Instead of spending resources on making useless/counterproductive bionics you can gift it to outlanders, spam caravan and soon you end up with overflowing plast

For fastest victory I am convinced that ship journey on standard 30% settings is the better option for all 4 starts. There are people winning in less than an year on merciless.

Thank you for your input, I shall remember your name from now on, there's few users here that show they know what they are saying and display expertise as well.

I expressed myself wrongly when I said "robocop" like, in the sense that they are all with simple prosthetics instead of bionics, I don't know if there is a RW lingo for that. So far non of my colonists have bionics yet and currently researching "Fabrication" as I write this reply, now I have 9 thrumbo horns stored but yet unable to sell.

While your proposed work around to kick and replace colonist "IS" an efficient method...to me...that also proves that Rim World is officially BROKEN. A game shall value and give higher score (although there is no point system) to players who manage to launch their "original" pawns.

Right now, it's: "-The way of achievements doesn't matter so long as we get it done.-". This is a terrible gameplay and a horrific concept. I shall kill, murder, burglar, steal, extortion, invade...and all this is valid...so long as I get rich/wealthy; for example. The game is showing us no value of the people we are to take care of, rim-GTA like maybe? I'm not saying that you yourself as a player or person are bad, I'm talking about the game "philosophy".

Who are the people winning in less than a year? Those are really worth listening to.

Lol Yoshida. You have done nothing but whine and complain for months since I joined, and I've seen Tynan warn you several times because of your behavior. I honestly don't know how you have not been banned yet. Or why you were still here, as all the complaining and whining implies you can't be having fun. Stop trolling and picking arguments with everybody and go play a game you like.

Oh...and by the way...kibble/penmican production makes the ingredients disappear and nothing gets produced.

Quote[...] that also proves that Rim World is officially BROKEN. A game shall value and give higher score (although there is no point system) to players who manage to launch their "original" pawns.

You aren't making any sense. No one has ever said it would be more valuable to launch the originals. Maybe more satisfying, story-wise, but a colony that persists after the death of its founders is interesting, too -- especially if they get off the godforsaken rock that is RimWorld.

QuoteOh...and by the way...kibble/penmican production makes the ingredients disappear and nothing gets produced.

Untrue as of 1.0 unstable.

As a "story generator" game, the lack of resources solved by replacing personal isn't really gamy. It is again the same dilemma of lack of immersion. I personally imagine myself as part of the colony (a Rick Grimes or Mal Reynolds) and if the rule of the colony is: "Injured = out"... then who would dare to fight the raids? Also very cold social norm among the members. Mind you, I bury the fallen and in my current game I have 4 pawns buried. By the way, why Sarcophagus doesn't give mood buff anymore?

I find the death of founding members a normal storyline, and I see two ways. One natural death and on the other hand "Banishment"... Banishment as a work around of lack of resources doesn't sound gamy.

Second topic, run another test of pemmican with the latest build and now it works.

My guys mostly don't die. When they do there's a damned good reason for it. An inevitable conclusion from a catastrophe, or an incredibly unlucky set of circumstances.

Caravan request still need better trade offs.

(https://i.imgur.com/qRbdMMq.png)


In a full game length, how many of these are worth working on? These keep putting me off and while I got dozens of non-sensical petitions this one in my current game made it to mention level. Whatever the algorithms are... I'm starting to think that the reward should at least be double the value if not more. Shall we start making a screenshot gallery of pathetic level trade requests?

As you get richer, the value multiplier for the rewards gets worse and worse. So stay poor, that is the theme of rimworld.

Oh also, serums are way too rare. And no that is not a sign that they are correctly rare. ATM you average to see a quest for one once every what 3-4 years? Insane. The mythical average "30 hour" player might never even see one.

yeah most caravan rewards are trash, things like legendary plasteel shelf is just going to give you extra raiders for what?

I kinda wish that the incapacitated refugee is slightly better or more sensual to get another colonist, it's not really worth it do them, i don't think someone would contact you out for help when they are in 1 meter inside the enemy outpost...

I would prefer the refugee quest to be a bit, more rewarding. Like the refugee is not down but is calling for help because he or she's outnumbered or trapped in a house while he or she's carrying an weapon and the stuff that he or she stole from the group or somehow made the animals mad or woke up the mechanoids.

If i start a new B19 game will the save transfer over just fine on wed for 1.0..?

Scavenger, I wouldn't bet on it. Start a new one on the unstable and it'll probably be fine though. Haven't had any problems.

+1, caravan trades are not worth it.

Even when they offer an item that you want, the profit is usually less than $1000, and sometimes as low as $300.  For reference, a single pawn can produce about 100-500 dollars of added value to goods in a day, depending on their skill and job. Then there's the risk of being ambushed, which is unacceptable at high difficulties.

Wish there were more offers for unique items, like serums and vanometrics. You can do a complete playthrough without seeing one.

Caravan trades are RARELY worth it. Not never.

20 cowboy hats for a charge rifle before you even have microelectronics? Yes please. 20 components for a jade royal bed? Pass.

Also, sometimes they're like 0.2 days away. You can be there and back before dinner.

Tynan,

So the big day comes and, as I promised, all my mods are fully compatible with B19 and 1.0 at the same time. They are all tested and also tagged with both versions.

Congratulations on the release Tynan. It was an exciting journey so far and I look forward to the future of Rimworld but also for new games that might come.

Rimworld has inspired me to make 10 very successful mods and of course Harmony, which now has over 650 stars on GitHub and is used in countless other games.

Cheers
Andreas Pardeike aka Brrainz
Twitter: @pardeike

Achtung * Camera+ * Careful Raids * Just Ignore Me Passing * MOD-E * No Pause Challenge * Range Finder * Reverse Commands * Same Spot * Zombieland

https://github.com/pardeike (https://github.com/pardeike)
https://steamcommunity.com/id/brrainz/myworkshopfiles/?appid=294100 (https://steamcommunity.com/id/brrainz/myworkshopfiles/?appid=294100)

This is how I manage my mods with updates.

I try to win first. If I do, I delete all my mods, unsubscribe from them, and wait for the update. If I don't, the day of the update I delete all my mods. I usually then take a 1 to three week break from the game while the new mods come out. Then I shop for new mods, maybe looking for favorites and play again.

I hate dealing with game versions and mod versions and trying to get it to work. So I avoid it altogether with the clean slate method. I have never carried over a save, though I have tested the functionality for the unstable branch.

Wow, I can't believe everyone is so upset about not having a destructive update. It's terrible coding practice, and I think that's where Tynan is coming from. It's not like you're getting paid for these "Subs" on the steam workshop, it just makes you look slimy if you're willing to destroy people's saves so you get more fake internet points.

Anybody know any official times of update tomorrow? Or even estimates. I estimate by 3PM Eastern Standard Time but I don't know how correct or not that is.

Also for anyone who finds it hard to deal with Steams auto update... saves or mods getting broken etc... If you want a possible better solution. Read the forum post I just made. https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=46214.0
Also read the 1st reply I got...

for the prisoner resistance change...when I leave the interaction to 'reduce resistance' in the queu the action my pawn is trying to take is recruit the prisoner...why is this? is it just a text error or WAD? The option to try to recruit isnt clicked and was the talking to prisoners option eliminated?

Quote from: Ruisuki on October 16, 2018, 09:34:11 PM
for the prisoner resistance change...when I leave the interaction to 'reduce resistance' in the queu the action my pawn is trying to take is recruit the prisoner...why is this? is it just a text error or WAD? The option to try to recruit isnt clicked and was the talking to prisoners option eliminated?

It's just a text ... well let's call it imprecision.