Messages

I imagine signposts as a single square sign that, upon construction, you get to write text on.

A signpost can be thought of as a lightweight story log - for example, you could place a signpost in the middle of a field where you fought an epic battle. The signpost can then read "Here we took a stand and kept a forty-man strong raiding party at bay. Ten brave colonists gave their life in defense of our great city." You can also use them as gravestones, writing a short epitaph for the colonist buried in the grave.

On the technical side of things, one possible implementation is to have the text being written upon completed construction of the signpost, in a prompt just like the city naming prompt.
The message can then be viewed with tool tip text when hovering over it.

In line with the above discussion I would suggest the same could be done to trading:

It could add to the story-telling part of the game if the trade ship actually landed on the game map. With the way the game engine works, having moving land vehicles probably won't work, but a space craft or surface-to-space transport taking off and landing on a 4x9 outside area shouldn't be hard to do. It would be somewhat similar to the way escape pods work.

The pros of doing this is that it offers a meaningful way to trade resources, instead of now where the resources you sell magically disappear from your stock. It also plays well with the coming release where your stock is less ethereal ( RTS-style resource counter in the top of the screen ) and more physical - i.e. every piece of your stock has a physical presence in the game world. When a trader ship lands and the trade is carried out, the colonists will physically move pieces of stock from your stockpile area into the ship.

It also adds some excitement to the trade if your colonists have to deal with the trader directly. If every trade is carried out in person between a socially adept colonist and a trader, all sorts of interesting stories can happen.
- The trader may decide to double-cross you and turn the visit into a raid ( or indeed be raiders masquerading as a trader )
- You might do the same and rob the trader at gunpoint.
- A third party group of raiders may intervene, eying a change for both yours and the traders goods.
- Slave/prisoner revolt aboard the transport.
- Transport crashes, into base or elsewhere, spilling its goods

[Version Found]

Version Found
0.0.254b (64-bit) Linux

Title
When the map is divided in two by players wall segments, a traveler stands still.

Summary
A player builds a wall from one side of the map to the other, dividing the map into two parts. When a traveler spawns on one side of the map and cannot exit on the other side, he/she stands still. Even if part of the dividing wall is sold by the player, the traveler still will not move.

Steps to Reproduce
1. Build a line of unbroken wall segments dividing up the map in two. The line may consist of both wall segments and rock.
2. When a traveler spawns as part of an event, he/she will stand still.

Expected Results
The traveler AI should find another way to exit the map, or do something else that is more meaningful than standing still. Perhaps attacking the offending wall to get through is a possibility.

Actual Results
The traveler stands still.

Notes
This bug may also cause raiders/refugees to not spawn. Have not checked this out thoroughly.

Anyhow, would you agree to reconsider you proposition as favouring non-direct control as long as it does not hinder gameplay in a major way?

Agree. With this tempered suggestion, I hope the developer(s?) will consider it

You are right, those are good examples of when "Hand of god" actions contribute to gameplay. It would still seem though that any action that may have storytelling consequences would benefit from ordering colonists, rather than quickly resolving the issue by a click on a UI button. It seems that "Hand of god" actions are anemic to story.

what if mines are only used as a mining tool, pun not intended? Does lack of HoG create tension and risk then?

I think that the more work you offload to colonists, the more alive the story becomes. So no, not tension and risk, but story immersion. You could argue that making tasks too tedious for the player, or making tasks ill-designed for larger scale base operation will hamper gameplay too much, but I would retort that there is value in making mundane tasks a little difficult to add flavor. A story where colonists must avoid and plan for roof collapses is more interesting than a story where the player simply press a button to clear some space. Since a large portion of the game is base building, wouldn't we want to make that part of the game more organic as well?

But your point is well taken, favoring colonist planning is by no means the all-round solution that I made it out to be, and your examples clearly show this.

Decommission is coming

Awesome! That should add some interesting gameplay. Would you by any chance have a source on this? A link or quote, perhaps?

It's a solid point if the immersion boost is a huge factor - in this case it's a very minor thing, that most players wouldn't notice.

Actually, I think it could be a pretty significant thing for a game like this where story is the foundation. Consider a battle between raiders and colonists. In the current version of the game, you can plaster the raiders route with blasting charges, sit back and see the raiders being blown to bits little by little as they advance, while the colonist just sit back and relax at their base. This is a boring story, with little potential for drama.

Imagine if the player must issue colonists to go out and set blasting charges to ignite. Much more intense. You have to consider placing the charges in places where you can ignite them without being shot at ( imagine being shot stunned as you are trying to leave the blasting charge you just ignited ). You have to plan the exit route for the colonist that ignites the charges, so he doesn't get caught between raider groups coming from both sides.

Even if blasting charges are activated remotely by a colonist with a radio, the story benefits from it. The game can require a certain minimum range between blasting charge and colonist for remote ignition to work. Solar storms can influence radio contact, screwing up your plans when raiders advance.

In general, replacing "Hand of god" actions with colonist planning seems to me to have strong benefits to the storytelling aspect of the game. But you are of course right that it shouldn't take precedence to common sense in making the game.

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but here goes:
Currently the game mostly offers the player control through orders. For example, to build a wall segment, the player makes a build order and one of the colonists will at their convenience build the segment.

However, there are a few exceptions where the colonists have no influence on what is happening in the game world. The player can directly ignite a Blasting Charge, and sell all items that have been build.

It might be cool to have everything carried out by colonists, as it improves immersion and realism.

Here are some concrete suggestions along those lines:
1) Selling vs decommission
Selling items that has been built is a "Hand of God" action, since the item being sold simply vanishes. It also doesn't make much sense, since who am I selling to?

Selling could be replaced with "decommission" which is an order placed on a built object. When an object is decommissioned, a colonist will come by and dismantle the object for a fraction gain of its original build cost. This adds some drama to battles and mining, since the player now has to consider the colonists health too.

2) Igniting blasting charges
Since a blasting charge is mining equipment, it should really be ignited by a colonist. This has the added benefit of making blasting charges more dangerous for the colonists in combat, since raiders may get a shot at them before they get to ignite and return to cover.