Messages

Last year I've thrown around and made a thread or two on a similar idea of reworking damage and melee. The power armor is a solid case on how shallow it's currently implemented, although i made a case on how this is also obviously bad on how pawns break apart doors and walls made of stone with punches. Not cool.

So yeah, +infinite to damage rework. It definitely needs a flat number thrown somewhere besides a % reduction.

Also agree on melee. There's a thousand ways to make melee better than it currently is, but preventing the logical error of allowing so many bodies in a single space should be priority.

Too bad Tynan hasn't made too many comments on the subject (if at all). if anyone has any quotes on this feel free to post it here.

I'll just chime in because I like the topic and upping the sim factor: Yes to toilets.

Btw, just to point out a huge [mis]assumption: No, adding a system like bladder doesn't in any way or circumstance imply the need to develop another system. No where in gaming this is a thing, EVERYTHING is modular and, like pointed out, depends on what is (or should) be good to gameplay-theme of the game.

Then there's the "too many needs+microing" argument. Although i'm against having to do extra dumb labor, managing stuff isn't one of them. After all, this game isn't a builder or a combat rts, its a survival managment game. The hybrid nature does bring some confusion to the mix, like people being odd against the joy system because their pawns would spend less time being brainless robots amassing resources (go figure). So, imo, rimworld profits for whatever system that adds to the challenge of making it feel like a survival game where i can manage stuff. Yes, waste isn't pretty, but its a real challenge.

That said, the sims was pretty annoying on how needy the lil bitches were, always whinning and wetting themselves, spending a whole hour just to eating a fucking cereal or taking a shower. Goes without saying that should a toilet/hygiene system comes a day-tick balance would follow.

A good compromise that i've been thinking and that Lady Wolf beat me to it, is using the already in place joy system to introduce bladder and hygiene. Not having a toilet only means that pawn wouln'd have to walk to a bush to relieve himself, possibly getting joy/mood from a confortable seat amidst a bad situation. Same for a shower, although a skinny dipping in the local lake should still be a possibility heh. (although a separate system specially for waste wouldn't be a...waste).

Some people might not get it, but the simple fact that there's a usable restroom makes a whole base a lot more believable. Watching pawns go to the bathroom might not produce any palpable benefit, like mining steel, but seeing how lively this makes things is worth it, and believe me thats fun.

The game Towns had the bury feature, which had the ability to do exactly that which is being discussed: Basically you save your town to be found later (by digging underground), either by you or another player, with varying decaying.

A similar system could go hand in hand with something I (and others) have been wanting for some time: the capacity of abandoning your colony. I mean, people have been nagging (with all right) about re-settling a new colony after leaving the planet, but its so much easier and logical to simply pack up your stuff and go when those 500 raiders are knocking at your door that i'm baffled about how we can't do it yet. So a system that lets you enjoy a [logical] and healthy departure from a doomed colony, together with that said colony remainings being enjoyed by other players would be a-some.

Ofc, we wouldn't find it underground because this game for some reason lacks z-levels (big unfortunetly here), but i'm sure a couple of dust and vines growing here and there and some random block destruction would be a charm

I always play on ludicrous and it takes quite a while to cross the map, about 13 seconds, 7 secs with shift, which is annoying because i have to drop the mouse and scroll with arrow keys. Sure, i can zoom out, but that also takes time and effort, and most of the time i play zoomed in (please, don't say that i should play more zoomed out, i could say the same that people should play zoomed in). Also, its not always about having to scroll to places, but being aware of things just at a glance.

You know what makes all that easier? Yep, a minimap.

What do you mean by "saving and loading locations"? Like explain in detail what these would be.

I'm not sure if it comes by a different name, but its a feature i've seen in a few strategy games (not only rts). Basically you save the location you're currently watching - similar to like you would group and go-to a unit in a regular rts - then quickly go to that place at a button's press. ex.: You scroll over to your killbox zone and press  ctrl+f1, then you roll over to your mines and press ctrl+f2 then back to your main base, right over your dinning area and press ctrl+f3. Then instead of having to scroll over every where, every time you want to check each of these areas you simply press the corresponding F key (or whatever binding it is).  Simple, elegant and effective.

There's a reason minimaps are featured in... most of the games: It's helpful to the player.

People can overanalyze however they want, but at the end of the day having a minimap would be a good thing, and it wouldn't make rimworld less "pure", or whatever it is people think when they see a feature they associate with something else or why they think it would be bad to have a map.

Make it toggle-able. Don't want it? Turn it off. But i bet even the people who say no to minimap would have it set it to on.

Also, saving and loading locations would be very helpful aswell (like saving units, except for a location).

To be honest OPs not that wrong in his request, a clearer definition in-game stating how thats a bad scar or something would be a huge help in interpreting wounds, because as it is it does seem a bit silly a squirrel bite gimp you as much as it can.

Then I wouldn't say a bad treatment is tantamount to bad scarring. I'd say its more about how and where you are hit and how your body respond to both healing and wound rather than a random chance of acquiring it after a bad treatment, although a bad suturing does have an impact on how a scar forms. I'd say that both a good and a bad treatment should have a chance to leave a painful scar - or not, taking in account the nature and extent of the damage, a good treatment simply helping the odds.

What really doesn't have a place is how a scar takes from your limb hitpoints. A scar, no matter how painful it is or how it affects your functionality doesn't make a person more eligible to have its limb blown off by a pistol shot. That is, having a scar taking 7 hp from a 30 hp limb thus making it easier to be destroyed is a bad mechanic.

If such mechanic is to remain, i'd limit HP penalty to a maximum of 1 Hp, and resort to pain and functionality penalties instead, although i wouldn't use the same rate the game uses as it makes scarring a constant gimp and pawns wimps, specially on earlier months.

edit p.s.: Most pain is manageable at least in the functionality level. I have a 7.5 cm (2.9 inches) scar in my foot after a surgery and the pain comes and goes, but i just suck it up when it hurts. When i have to do something the pain vanishes because my mind is elsewhere. There's barely even a mechanic impediment while i run.

The personal canteen has been suggested here and in older threads and, in my opinion, is the most sensible approach given the current system and possible system follow-ups. It's elegant, simple, credible and still opens all the possibilities that thirst and water could give to a more complex game. If people don't like complex then fine, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it either.

Most of the criticism thirst/water/hygiene gets could be applied to most if not all of the needs. As must be regularly noted, this game is mostly about managing pawn needs, not building or fighting (although its a major plus), so yeah, i'm all down for thirst/water/hygiene.

That said, there is a just concern with overwhelming micro. So, since pawns already start with an embedded multi-tool that can build and destroy on a molecular level (mine, build, repair,etc), they could all come equipped with a personal survival canteen that holds x amount of water. Every few hours they'd take a sip, possibly taking a second or two for the "animation", reducing a water amount and recovering thirst meter.

When empty or below a threshold, they'd move to a source of water, like buckets, sinks, taps, whatever and refill it. The canteen could be a slot item like an apparel or door key, or "built-in" like the omni-tool they got. Right click on water source could force a refill or a sip for longer trips or because of (and there will be) events related to water quality or contamination. Probably could lock a source of water so you can ration it in a biome where drinking water is scarce, like you can with food and anything else.

Gods yes +1 hold fire and extra behavior settings pleease

Doesn't that makes NPD obsolete?

Should microwave ovens be a thing, i thing they should do exactly what they do: heat food. So stored frozen food could be heated to provide its usual bonuses/prevent penalties.

Or something along the work enhancer items that we discussed in a past topic (i really liked that idea).

Well this post certainly went on a bit since the last time i checked in.

To avoid addressing point-by-point - which didn't went so well the last time i did - i'll try to stick to major points, specially since some of the points have already been addressed, with the expected diffidence. Since a lot has been written, my response may seem "all over", if required please inquire and i'll be more precise.

rexx1888

Lets leave keg alone, on other topics his opinions are objectively correct, an hes pretty nice. It took me a few weeks of forum hopping to see, but its true.

By no means we (or at least I) are on a personal vendetta against Keg. I appreciate his input elsewhere and even his good sense on this very topic in reversing personal jabbing, the seemly picking is due to his vehement defense of anti-fow and that's about it, i'll always agree or disagree with people on a subject by subject basis, not on affection. Likewise Anduin might come off as strong sometimes, but his punctual remarks are always welcome even if we disagree, which is something we did in the past but has no affect in supporting my opinions here.

The paragraph above is just to emphasize that my complete disagreement with anti-fow arguments have nothing to do with personal feelings or emotional clinging to "being right", i hope we're all past that.

Now, as for the suspension bit:

I'm really baffled by the side discussion regarding the validity of fog of war in creating suspension. Frankly, anti-fow argument is already based on personal opinion, but disregarding the suspension making mechanic behind the concept of FoW is simply wrong.

Kegereneku

, as i said before, as much as i appreciate that quote (being a cinephile and whatnot), you simply can't compare movie to game. Each medium has its own language, some techniques are borrowed from others but each has its own twists. Suspension making even differs depending on each genre.

Still regarding that quote, please not that Hitchcock never imply that suspense requires omniscience. Information yes, but never omniscience.

Watch Rear Window. The protagonist, with his busted leg, sits all day watching his neighbors until he notices something strange going on in the front condo. He never saw the woman being killed nor his "allies" did. The entire PoV is attached to his line of sight (in game terms), he has no omniscience nor the audience does (we watch what he watches), yet suspense is achieved. Why? Because suspense doesn't require full disclosure of information, it requires just enough information to generate anticipation. There's hope (we will catch the killer, the girlfriend won't get caught) , there's fear (can we catch the killer? the girlfriend will get caught!) and uncertainty (how it will unfold?).

In a scene, the protagonist dials the killer and setups a fake meeting creating an opportunity so the gf can go into the killer's apartment. Since we are locked to his PoV we never know when the killer is going to arrive, but we know  he might arrive.  (hope: she will evade the killer. Fear: the killer will catch her). Now, while we can arguably discuss that the full disclosure of the killer location and walking speed could still achieve suspense (i wont say no, but i like not knowing where he is) how would that unfold in a game? If you are just the leg busted guy that's the same as spectating/movie, so lets focus on the gf. You are her and you can magically see the location and speed of the killer. How will that provide suspense?

In Alien and Aliens, we are shown just enough to fear the xenophorm, but all interactions work under the uncertainty of its location. When I said that FoW could have (or better: SHOULD) the aid of sound cues, music, text and whatever, you dismissed it as special effects, but these "special effects" are exactly what we use in the industry to create all the atmosphere required to create tension and suspense.

Then, in Touch of Evil, we have a sequence shot where a couple enters a car and moves toward a border. Previously, a hidden figure approaches the car and plants something. We don't know what it is but isn't good.  (note: we see him putting but we have no information of what it really is. No omniscience). Then we spend the next 3 minutes either forgetting about it or rooting so it's not something bad. Then, just as they leave the car and are about to kiss, the car explodes.  Of course, if you have no idea that something has been planted and it simply explodes, that's only surprise (and frustration) but my point is that you can't directly compare movie to game, if this scene wouldn't work (as is) in a game under FoW, it wouldn't work under omniscience as well: what's the point of entering the car if you know there's a bomb?

Now, I know that you frequently state an idea of controlled FoW, but frankly, the same could be applied to FoW: controlled omniscience. It's only a matter of what you'd like to be more pervasive.

To sum: A story never shows too much nor too little, it shows precisely what it needs (or so it should be) (*inserts gandalf)

(...)To me, as I gave reasons for across the entire thread a "classic" FoW is only relevant for Wargame. And would IMO harms the storytelling & survival aspect of Rimworld, as well as impede Events creation.

That's a shallow and used argument. It was used in a previous topic and several people, including myself, have already established that several games other than wargames make use of Fog of War. Nevermind that it should include an *IMHO* there.

Then i have to point out that there's Fog of War [concept] and Fog of War [implementation]. As already said, the concept is used in MANY games (i'll guess: the majority) and relates to the struggle of information. The implementation of fog of war in games like an fps are what i would say "natural", but it doesn't make it any less a reality. The nature of strategy games and its distinct view requires an artificial method to emulate this state, thus was FoW [black veil] created. I'm not saying that's how rimworld should roll, i'll even agree that there was little innovation in improving this system, but i'm saying that it's a reliable approach and there's nothing wrong with it.

There's nothing in FoW (concept or implementation) that makes it a wargame. Frankly, you're the only one bringing wargames here. Why are you not, for instance, arguing against direct pawn selection? That's a feature in wargames as well. What gives? For instance, is Neo Scavenger a wargame? Is Don't starve now? Is civilization? Is Dead State? Dungeon Keeper? Torment? Fallout?

Is stratego any less of a board game because you can't see your foes pieces? There's chance involved, but so there is skill, and yes, there are not any less possible strategies available in stratego because there's a "FoW". If you are worried because of chance spoiling things, remember that in poker tournaments there's always the known champions.

MarvinKosh

I think that it is unreasonable punitive to require the player to draft colonists to go clear fog

Marvin, first you have to ask yourself why is it so punitive. Why? because it will hurt the economy? What will happen if it hurts, starvation? Unlikely, most likely you won't build sentry #22 so you hold off wave #81. There seems to be this idea that FoW will focus on war when it oh so much on the contrary. Rimworld is already war focused, if anything, FoW could provide another venues to provide strife that is not synonymous with invasions. There's no one saying that we HAVE to be invaded by someone just to test how nasty fow is, some people might just enjoy having a pawn strolling and seeing things as he goes.

Again: The game is about managing needs and security and information is (or can become) a need. Saying that doing so is annoying is a very analytical response for something it shouldn't. It reminds me of the joy suggestion post that tynan posted, where a few people criticized the idea of their pawns having time off because doing so was "wasteful" and "inefficient" ( i don't recall the exact words, but that was the gist). Tynam then reminded that the game is exactly about doing these sort of things, which i agree.

Turps

Speaking about emotion, you really bring nothing to the discussion despite a snark emotional "i don't wanna FoW". (no offense meant, just responding with the same tone)

Making walls-o-text has no saying on what kind of people we are or the righteousness of our worlds, jut our interest in the subject. Likewise, inability or aversion to read these words have no impact on the veracity of either side.

According to Tynan FoW was taken out because it confused people. That's not a surprise. If we had FoW now, it would be hell. The game was and is still not prepared for FoW, but that has nothing to do with its feasibility should it be given a go.

puddlejumper448

Puddle, i understand what you are trying to get at, but first have in mind that the scale is not realistic, if a map were indeed to be 100m~ we certainly wouldn't take hours to cross it, which is what happens under that logic. Everything has to be approximated or abstracted, just like the world map quadrants aren't meant to be only the map chosen, which would make the world really reallyyy small.

As pointed out already, obvious landmarks such as mountains would be a given, but the essence lies in the minutia of things you can't discern in the distance, which is what the topic should be about really (instead of de-railing every f* time because someone doesn't want FoW.
The type of discussion we should be having is exactly this:  what should we always be allowed to see? Mountains, sure. People? No, yes? depends on the distance? Gradual information disclosure? We can have a large field of vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but no, it's not the same as having omniscience because of other map features such as distance (already mentioned), walls and buildings, geographical accidents, altitude variations, etc.
Remembering a issue (bringing the colonies out in the open), a positive feature of FoW is that while dwarfing is safer open colonies enjoy a better field of view.

If you did your research, almost all ammunition is different.

If you read carefully, I said that some ammo types have minute/small differences (infer: not worthy to be translated into the game), I never said all nor that even some are, although some do, with the difference being that they are made by competing manufacturers.

For example, there's no point in having both FMJ and HP if the game's health system doesn't feature tissue penetration (damage is in a single area, unless its an explosion) nor differentiating 7.62  39 from 51 if the game doesn't feature... i dunno, recoil?

A lot of ammo types were made to be a standard in its time/nation/conglomerate. So a standard ammo in rimworld is whatever is standard in that time and place.

I'll put some random made up numbers so, in game terms:
standard ammo: 12 damage
armor piercing ammo: 8 damage, ignores x amount of armor/ or halves armor.
high explosive damage: 8 ballistic damage + 6 explosion damage on radius
etcetera

If standard ammo is 1 part ball ammo, 1 part tracer and 1 part hollow, why not call it standard ammo and abstract all these parts?

I'm not saying your system doesn't work, just that it sounds too gun nutting / detailed for the average rimworld audience. If it works and most people find it cool, then cool.

Perhaps i'd enjoy more (or care for) the intricacies of different ammo types in a jagged alliance/silent storm type of game, which even have a specific era. But this being the future and all, our contemporary ammo types even sound anachronistic.

That said, i get what you are saying about fine details, but a common ground (between no ammo and gun nuts) is having these dozens of ammo types (some with minute differences) be translated into your:  Standard Ammo, AP ammo, HE ammo, whatever-we-fancy-ammo...

Ah yes ammo, the third scourge of the forums besides multiplayer and fog of war

i'd +5 only if extremely streamlined (no minute ammo types) and if micro was eased, such as auto-refill when undrafted and instantly rearming when passing next to a weapon cache. Then it would work better with extra slots so you can can have several options such as bringing extra ammo or an extra melee weapon for example. When out of ammo, battles would devolve to brawls, which should (or could) be a hella funny.

I like the added logistics and management of it all, rimworld being a management game and all, but i can see how some people who are more tuned to the building aspect of the game being put off by it. Perhaps a mod could tackle it first to see how it fares.

btw, do a search for the dozens of posts on ammo, there's a couple of good talk there if memory serves me well

I'll bring something from a turret post: the A.I control HUB. A station that is built using an AI core and is used to control a certain number of robot units. So said hub could allow the control of say... 8 units that be sentry turrets, cleaning robots, hauling robots or whatever we fancy creating. Alternatively, a hub could control units in a radius.

I'm also neutral on using cores for a single unit. We can knowledge wank whatever we want, but in the end all that matters is what's good for gameplay and that stuff can be re-written to allow that.

So a core, superhuman or not, could have behavior shackles to only serve one function or you could simply have a small station (1 square) installed in a room and limited to either that room or neighboring rooms. Clean speed could be slower than a human and it could work on a battery that needs recharging every once in a while, as pointed out already. I can't see cleaning robots being any more OP than spamming turrets.

Yes, but animals move and situations change instantly with events. Plus sometimes there's information overload, specially on larger maps. And while deep down you can pin everything down to the player, the game can and should provide steps and measures to assist you (a.k.a.: improve gameplay). Unless of course it's an intended feature, which in this case i doubt it is so. 

Either way, danger zones are quite often requested so i guess its a matter of time or another better way to handle this