When I saw that a patch was being rolled out to adjust difficulty levels, I must admit it made me a little worried; not because the change or goal of the change wasn't good, but because this kind of change strikes me as a beta or even post-beta level change. I'm not sure how much time it takes to tweak these things; hopefully not very much, but I still think it's important for a game developer in an alpha stage to be focused on two things:
1. Stability and code refactoring.
2. Fielding and testing new core game elements, or implementing planned changes to current game elements.
I admire Tynan's attentiveness to his fans here very much, but if he allows himself to be distracted and side-tracked by balance tweaks the community calls for this early in development, I'm worried that it will massively delay the final product; after all, the community will always always always have suggestions no matter how "finished" a game is.
So yeah, that's my attempt at constructive criticism. I really like the game and am looking forward to seeing it grow and succeed!
yea ive seen a lot of threads about people wanting balancing.. The game is in ALPHA your balances will come later...
+1
we dont mind the balance! if anything we enjoy the challenge!
Agree whole heartedly, I fully appreciate this is pre-alpha and there are bound to be problems. It's a great game as is, hell probably better than most games I've played in recent years. I say work on implementing the new game elements you've talked about and leave balancing for later.
i agree, new features will always be more interesting and adding them will just unbalance things again anyway, but maybe Tynan wants something more balanced and stable for when it goes public in january, either way i am looking forward to more updates in the future
While it's true that this isn't a great point in development to be "tweaking," more open testing revealed some pretty fundamental problems that meant the game wasn't playing as it was supposed to. Rimworld isn't supposed to be tower defense, but that's how it has been playing due to the effectiveness of turrets, the ineffectiveness of sandbags, and the frequency of raider attacks. Defense is currently the, by far and away, dominant consideration when planning a base. Trying to address that issue isn't a matter of "tweaking," it's a pretty fundamental design issue. Being aware of it - and whether or not it *is* just an issue of difficulty, or is tied to more fundamental problems - will shape how development proceeds, and so it worth addressing early.
Quote from: Teiwaz on November 09, 2013, 11:04:45 PM
While it's true that this isn't a great point in development to be "tweaking," more open testing revealed some pretty fundamental problems that meant the game wasn't playing as it was supposed to. Rimworld isn't supposed to be tower defense, but that's how it has been playing due to the effectiveness of turrets, the ineffectiveness of sandbags, and the frequency of raider attacks. Defense is currently the, by far and away, dominant consideration when planning a base. Trying to address that issue isn't a matter of "tweaking," it's a pretty fundamental design issue. Being aware of it - and whether or not it *is* just an issue of difficulty, or is tied to more fundamental problems - will shape how development proceeds, and so it worth addressing early.
Wouldn't you think, though, that the best way to move away from a tower defense-like game would be to add obstacles that aren't enemies that charge your base? Not to tweak the number and manner in which they charge?
Your logic is flawed.
If balance is off and difficulty is off, people won't play, there will be less feedback and less interest in the game. Considering how long it takes to tweak these things, it's seriously worth the time.
There is also other side to the coin. This is not a hobby gardening problem, there are real moneyz involved and that makes it a little more tricky. Tynan can't just lock himself throwing "ALPHA! ALPHA!" around - he would loose all credibility and interest. If there is a flaw that is easily repaired that stops people from fully enjoying the game as it is - in alpha - then these issues need to be addressed.
Also, this is hypocrisy on the highest level :) Don't listen to community! Don't try to decide yourself what is worthwhile! Listen to MEEEE! Sorry, but the sad truth is - if Tynan is willing to listen to community to a degree, he will. If he want to address a problem, he will. If he wants to ask for opinions - he will. If he doesn't - he won't. It's only up to him to decide where and how much he can bend.
Telling him how and when listen to community on the other hand...
Well, I wanted to make some basic changes to get the game to a solid playable state for the majority of players. Since it seems to be there now, my hope is that I can leave it for a while and do some more large-scale dev work.
I think it was okay to spend a week after release smoothing out new issues before I dove back into heavy development. Don't worry, I won't get stuck working on trivialities. Task prioritization (e.g. strategically not doing things that seem like good ideas on the surface) is a speciality of mine :) I won't be doing detail tweaks too much right now because they'll all get wiped out by big changes later anyway. But I wanted to get the game to a pretty good state, because thousands of people are playing it and paying for it.
Regarding the state of RimWorld at the moment: The game is very tower-defensey as it stands, and runs out of content after a while. but I consider it a great success that people are even noticing these issues, because they don't appear until after hours and hours of play. It means people really like the game enough to get that deep into it, and I consider the pre-alpha a huge success because of how well it has done in this regard. It's not a finished game and I never intended it to be. But it'll be a great platform to develop from in the future. And the feedback (whether intentional as feedback or simply observed outcomes) from the community is really useful in determining what to work on next.
Yeah, I do think the game is really great even as-is and can't wait to see what it becomes, and I didn't mean to say that the community shouldn't make suggestions! ;D
Anyway keep it up!
I think its good to take this approach, especially when you consider what Tynan has now is the foundations, its makes things so much easier down the line. In engineering we call it good housekeeping or clean as you go and this concept can be applied to almost anything :).
Quote from: Tynan on November 10, 2013, 04:29:50 PMIt means people really like the game enough to get that deep into it, and I consider the pre-alpha a huge success because of how well it has done in this regard.
People already started playthroughs with handicaps of no turrets, no funnelling and no pancake bunkers. THIS is telling everything about this game anyone needs to know.
I know this post will be coming. There are some Peoples out there, they think they have buy a full game and now start open hate and flame thread -.-
I have Backed for the Idea and i think im not the only one. And i know its a pre alpha and damn i got alot of very funny times in game i love it i have spend many hour to learn the basics and have alot of laughts how the raiders sometimes work :D but again i know its a pre-alpha and i know also think can be changed.
The Real Backers out there that they know it is an Alpha, they are the ones they Help and they play it and report bugs to help to get the Game become a great game. And i Honored the Developer they work so hard with us the community together. We are the ones they can help to make a better game. So Please guys out there let us do it in a Constructiv Way not a destructiv way.
For all the oney they dont know what Pre-Alpha means here a good Lesson to read :)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pre-alpha_version
The Other way is try out the prototypes they are very good ideas too and i play some of them a long time (I love the Tactical Prototype^^)
The tactical prototype is pretty cool. Definitely FTL inspired :). But better in my opinion. Might be the way the game plays im not sure.
Quote from: Galileus on November 10, 2013, 06:31:28 PM
Quote from: Tynan on November 10, 2013, 04:29:50 PMIt means people really like the game enough to get that deep into it, and I consider the pre-alpha a huge success because of how well it has done in this regard.
People already started playthroughs with handicaps of no turrets, no funnelling and no pancake bunkers. THIS is telling everything about this game anyone needs to know.
No turrets and going into the mountains for mining only on Cassandra is hardcore. While I have reloaded games a few times starting out, I'm at the point now that if I start a base and it all goes to hell, then that's that. Story told.
I've already had so many laugh out loud and totally disturbing moments with RimWorld. If the modules all make it into the game, we are gonna be some happy campers. I want to see the social aspects and the research tree grow, and hopefully get some new enemies/situations to encounter. Already kind of miss digging around and accidentally unleashing monsters from the underworld like in DF and Gnomoria.
Quote from: Galileus on November 10, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
If balance is off and difficulty is off, people won't play, there will be less feedback and less interest in the game
Yeah, cause you speak of ALL of the community...get real dude, not everyone is like that, certainly not me.
Yeah, tweaks are relatively easy to do, but tweaks will be inevitable anytime anything new is added, and since it IS very early on (and only kick-starter people have it atm) its understandable that some things won't be balanced. I would very, very, very much prefer unbalanced but new content instead of repeatedly tweaking a bunch of things, which will most likely be tweaked later anyway. Besides, adding in new things INEVITABLY means old things need to be tweaked accordingly, so I'm sure it wouldn't hurt.
QuotePeople already started playthroughs with handicaps of no turrets, no funnelling and no pancake bunkers. ...
This is right.
It is pre-alpha, leave old things there and keep new contents in. Player will test the game mechanics and keeping feeding back.
If something is useless, people won't use it, they will die out by itself.
If there is a contradictory opinions about a certain thing, that suggest two different game modes for two different groups of players in the future. It is an opportunity to the game development.
Don't decide what should be there and what shouldn't be definitely just yet.
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 11, 2013, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: Galileus on November 10, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
If balance is off and difficulty is off, people won't play, there will be less feedback and less interest in the game
Yeah, cause you speak of ALL of the community...get real dude, not everyone is like that, certainly not me.
No, I speak of common sense.
Quote from: Galileus on November 11, 2013, 04:59:23 AM
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 11, 2013, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: Galileus on November 10, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
If balance is off and difficulty is off, people won't play, there will be less feedback and less interest in the game
Yeah, cause you speak of ALL of the community...get real dude, not everyone is like that, certainly not me.
No, I speak of common sense
Again, you are trying to speak for everyone. And hell, balance / difficulty issues have been much, much worse in other games and (along with other issues) and people still love them, even if they are no longer updated despite the balance issues. Postal 2 for instance has horrible, horrible balance issues, but I still love the game because its entertaining, and so do many people. And its a complete game, has been for years, but we don't care about the balance issues, cause the positives outweigh the negative in our eyes.
See, people who play betas of things SHOULD know that something is incomplete, and things may not be balanced, someone who legitimately stops playing a game just because a beta update is unbalanced is most likely a little kid, and doesn't understand what a beta is, and frankly isn't a good person to weigh opinions in on a game.
So please... DON'T try speaking for everyone, your opinion is not mine, and I'm certain I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 11, 2013, 05:10:20 AMSo please... DON'T try speaking for everyone, your opinion is not mine, and I'm certain I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Like IMHO that? IMHO because if that's IMHO what you IMHO expect me IMHO to do, then how about NO.
I simply fail to see your point? You want me to spew "IMHO" every minute? You want me to never ever speak of majorities because someone can be minority? Will you react the same if I say you that most of planet Earth surface is water - will you accuse me of lying, because you don't live on water? I fail to capture why would you even propose a censorship only, because you may think differently. Well... I do have few ideas, but I'm far too much of a nice guy to believe you would have such low drives about you. You wouldn't, would you?
QuoteSee, people who play betas of things SHOULD know that something is incomplete, and things may not be balanced, someone who legitimately stops playing a game just because a beta update is unbalanced is most likely a little kid
This is from a man, who told me to get real? If someone stops playing a game because he don't find it fun, he's most likely a reasonable human being. If someone don't have fun while playing a game but plays it nevertheless "because it's a beta", then he's most likely a little kid. The rest of us have jobs we have to do, and we want our games to be fun - not an another job.
There's to be an open alpha soon, and people WILL drop it if there are major problems with it. The game can be tough as it is, it doesn't need to be punishing as well.
Alpha/beta is obviously a statement, that the game is incomplete and there will be changes. It is not a statement, that you should like the game even if you have no fun. It asks for trust, that bugs or problems will be addressed - but it does not guarantee a positive answer. What does guarantee an answer is quality - if the game is playable and enjoyable in alpha, there's a huge chance it will be so in beta and on release. If the game is not - it begs a question "why release it in alpha, then?".
When you release a public alpha no less, you state - look at my game, my game is amazing! Then people look at the game to see if it is indeed amazing, NOT to suffer through it "because it's alpha, so what do you want?". It really doesn't matter what version or art you release - a public release needs to be of a certain quality.
And once again, to address your accusations - what I write is my opinion, and that should go without any additional notifications. I will most certainly not stop posting, because you think censorship is good idea. You would do well to remember, that in any discussion people exchange ideas, statements and opinions and rarely if ever proceed to explain which one was which - most of us do well capturing these things. If you disagree - please, be my guest and make your statement with appropriate argument instead of trying to force me into submission or forbidding me to address issues relating to majorities.
Quote from: Galileus on November 10, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
Your logic is flawed.
...Also, this is hypocrisy on the highest level...
Quote from: Galileus on November 11, 2013, 06:15:44 AM
Like IMHO that? IMHO because if that's IMHO what you IMHO expect me IMHO to do, then how about NO.
I simply fail to see your point? You want me to spew "IMHO" every minute? You want me to never ever speak of majorities because someone can be minority? Will you react the same if I say you that most of planet Earth surface is water - will you accuse me of lying, because you don't live on water? I fail to capture why would you even propose a censorship only, because you may think differently. Well... I do have few ideas, but I'm far too much of a nice guy to believe you would have such low drives about you. You wouldn't, would you?
Alright I'm putting a stop to things here, this is getting ridiculous.
Galileus while I fully respect you have some valid statements; even if they are phrased sweepingly,
PLEASE stop being so confrontational on the forums. Both here with mumble and on other occasions I can point to (notably ShadowDragon8685).
You have good thoughts -
just like everybody else- and are encouraged to express them here, but please refrain from criticising others' ideas & opinions unless it is constructive and clearly friendly in tone.
I do get confrontational easily, ey? True enough. I do have a lot to say, and when someone cuts it short... well, old habits die hard, you have to get down in tears and blood on some of these forums to get your message across. Than again, here it's way out of the line, I will give you that. Will do my best to adapt or get banned trying, sir!
Quote from: Galileus on November 11, 2013, 11:05:29 AM
I do get confrontational easily, ey? True enough. I do have a lot to say, and when someone cuts it short... well, old habits die hard, you have to get down in tears and blood on some of these forums to get your message across. Than again, here it's way out of the line, I will give you that. Will do my best to adapt or get banned trying, sir!
You're hard to dislike, you know that lol? You're unlikely to get banned as there are worse offenders than yourself and I wasn't fluffing up the reprimand by saying you have valid points; I read through every comment you've made here before passing judgement.
It's just at the moment we're trying to be less cut-and-dry with proposed ideas, no outright refusals and no definite approvals. It gives the author time to see their own errors and evolve, or simply expand their initial suggestion into new directions.
The other thing to keep in mind is that this isn't just a kickstarted game. It's also an alphafunded game. The reality is that the game is playable now, and people are paying for it now, and it is probably going to be in development for quite some time.
I've seen far too many cases where "pre-alpha" is used as an excuse for messed up priorities. The 9,000 pound gorilla in the room is Dwarf Fortress. I love Dwarf Fortress. But *years* of development are put into stuff like world generation and bee keeping, while all along the interface sucks, sieges can be completely negated by a drawbridge that costs 8 stone to build, and basic features like military training still don't work worth a damn.
I can't get friends to even try Dwarf Fortress. The justification for not having a proper interface is that "it's still in pre-alpha." Well, I've been playing it since the 2D version, so that's at *least* seven years, and if anything, the interface keeps getting worse as more stuff is bolted onto the game. There comes a time when you have to recognize that "pre-alpha" is the state in which your game will be experienced by most people, and it's the state that it'll be in for the foreseeable future, and you need to make the effort to keep it playable. It's a choice that Tarn has made, and it seems like he's comfortable with what he can pull in from donations, but it's also a choice made while he has been insulated by a community that says just this: "don't worry if it's barely playable, it's okay, it's pre-alpha, we'll live with it" and he never even sees the thousands of people who try it and give up, or are scared off by the incomprehensible screenshots, and never even have a chance to become a customer. With its headstart in the genre, its internet-fame and buzz, Dwarf Fortress could have been a Minecraft. But it's not, because "pre-alpha!"
Rimworld is already in a much better place than DF has ever been in terms of accessibility. But I know I, for one, already have a hard time recommending it to anyone that isn't a bit of a glutton for punishment. When I describe the game - especially before Chill Callie - it's one where you are hanging on by your fingernails under constant raider attacks, where every minute you're just barely holding on to life, and eventually you die anyway. That's not an experience that a lot of players want, even when they otherwise would be very open to a deep town building game: something which captures the spirit of DF without the catastrophic interface. Also, now that the game is playable, there are Let's Plays and forum posts and reviews going up every minute. Those things aren't going to go away, and in the future when people are looking up Rimworld, they're going to find descriptions of how the game plays and feels *now.* It all comes down to the fact that you can't have your evangelists warning people away.
While it's impossible to maintain a game in a fully polished, playable state while it's underdevelopment, if you ignore keeping it as playable as is reasonably possible, you do so at your own peril.
It's a funny story with Minecraft, really. It hit all the right notes yet Notch failed to see it again and yet again, and doing quite a lot of sad and bad for his game. Still, in the end successful concept prevailed, but that a story only one in a thousand brilliant games have luck to tell. I do hope RimWorld will be one of these games - it's definitely worth it and Tynan has shown a lot of good stuff both in the terms of game and his development. Single fact of not bending under the pressure of dozens of 3D block games that seem to pop-up right now and keeping it nice and clean with no Z-axis is an award-winning move. Then there are things like patches, planning the game in modular fashion... RimWorld deserves to get a chance to tell that story, and Kickstarter and pre-alpha reviews show that clearly!
Quote from: Galileus on November 11, 2013, 11:05:29 AM
I do get confrontational easily, ey? True enough. I do have a lot to say, and when someone cuts it short...
You just have to realize that, while its annoying to have someone "cut you short", others equally dislike having their opinions cut short as well.
Just keep that in mind, disagreements WILL happen on forums (its inevitable) But just try and keep in mind that while they will happen, its ok to disagree, and it doesn't need to turn into a flame match, and nobody even needs to "win" such argument.
(Side note : sorry admin if this is seen as continuing something on, just felt this really needed to be said)
On topic, priority right now REALLY needs to be adding flesh to the bare bones. As said before, tweaks will be required ANYTIME, ANYTHING is added, so doing tweaking in bursts (like 1 update all flesh, 1 all tweaks, or 2 updates, flesh, 1 tweaks) is better for letting the game progress in a smooth manner.
There's no point making a perfectly balanced game if it will just become unbalanced next update, you just need to keep a reasonably steady pace about it.
Mumble - I don't want to prolong it either, but just short thing of clarification.
One, yeah, I know the thing exactly. Even worse, I tend to often make points or statements in thought-shortcut way ("many people will" -> "people will" is a REAL soft slide for me, really) and even get into prolonged argues over it because it will never occur to me there is a shortcut in thought process only I can see.
Two - most importantly, I always put arguments before people, even if it seems otherwise. You may yet see me defending your idea as fiercely as I would go against you. Hell, on last forums I was I made some friends by trading insults with them for pages (don't worry - different forums, it was actually needed there) or gained sort of infamy for suddenly changing sides when someone would try to piggyback his (even worse) idea using my opposition to the prior one. I'm here to discuss and not to date - and in discussions sides change as often as good arguments are presented :)