Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General Discussion / Re: Meat cubes are weird and kind of gross.

« on: July 27, 2018, 05:16:26 PM »

I always wished we could get an art style like this ("Door Kickers"), especially for the pawns. It's probably the coolest top down sort of art style out there, well animated too.

2

Outdated / Re: [A15] Mars (v2.0.1) Martian colony builder - now with air!

« on: September 17, 2016, 01:22:28 PM »

Dubwise56,

Just wanted to say that this is a really amazing mod, the air system adds such an interesting and deep layer to gameplay that I am actually astounded that I've never considered nor seen a suggestion for this as a modded or base-game feature. This pretty much makes Planetbase a waste of disk space on my PC now. The only thing that is missing from Rimworld that Planet Base has is a system for water gathering and use.

Very very good contribution man. Good work!

-Michael

3

Ideas / Re: Water System In Rimworld

« on: July 28, 2016, 12:09:50 AM »

Due to the natural age gap between stated age and actual

age of each colonist you have to wonder whether they

were from colonies that even trained them to urinate/defecate

(since one has to assume that they've been frozen and become

dependent on implants to do everything for them- many of them

being devices that may allow them to extract moisture from blood

or from the air).

What. . .

Why would your society need to train you to urinate or defecate. . . It is a basic human function. IF somehow, they had an implant or what have you. . . It needs to be an actual implant (mechanically). Not all humans are from such high tech worlds.

Though I find it interesting, the idea of a technology that you could implant in your colonist to remove their need to shit or piss. How would that work?

4

Ideas / Re: Berserk colonists need non lethal solution

« on: July 28, 2016, 12:04:23 AM »

I think the real issue is that the system suggests that our colonists, and humans in general, are a bunch of fragile and unstable individuals. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the mental/emotional aspects of the game. However, there should be a wider spectrum of bonuses and penalties to colonist happiness and unhappiness. As it stands, humans seem to have been all raised in some feminist liberal society composed of individuals with some form of depression or anxiety disorder.

5

Ideas / Re: Prepare Carefully integration

« on: July 27, 2016, 11:48:47 PM »

i think i said this before in another similar thread, but the only reason i can think of why prep carefully isn't integrated is coz of the kickstarter backers who paid for custom characters, since adding prep carefully the way EDB made it would essentially be like letting players create their own custom characters for free.

----

as a compromise, instead of custom stats, i'd be content if tynan just adds the feature to customize how each character would look. (ie : change face shape, change skin color, change hair type, change hair color. but not body type, since it's connected to background traits) passions, traits (but not background traits, since background traits are part of the custom characters bought by some kickstarter backers)

^ i think those changes are doable since iirc, those things aren't included in the custom characters created by kickstarter backers. so these changes should not affect their purchase.

---

of course, the randomize button should still be there and should ALWAYS be there for people who prefers totally random.

I don't think the improvement of the game should be limited by the kickstarter. Besides, those custom characters can still be spawned in game with the integration of the prepare carefully. They are there natively, they spawn in the world without player intervention. That is reward enough, I think - they are still there, where as a character you make yourself will only spawn in that specific way if you create it during the 'prepare carefully' portion of the game. It won't show up any other time.

As far as I can tell, the traits, passions, equipment, appearance, age, and skills are all random when a backed character is spawned. The only thing that remains the same are the backgrounds and name. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure more than one of the same backed character can spawn in a single game, which is silly.

Finally. . . There is like zero quality control when it comes to backgrounds. In my opinion, there should be a built in editor to add new backgrounds/traits, as well as to remove backgrounds/traits (or at least keep them from being used). So many bad bad bad backgrounds - if such a tool were to be made, pretty please allow us to edit the ones already present as well!

Long story short: Don't punish us for the sake of the kickstarter. . . If this is the case.

Another thing: This sort of stuff would be cool for the workshop. Importing player made traits/backgrounds.

6

Ideas / Re: Water System In Rimworld

« on: July 27, 2016, 11:30:15 PM »

This genre is about tedium. Games are about challenge.

My take on it, is that it adds another layer of complexity, which in turns makes the strategic element of colony building more challenging. I find challenge to be interesting, so long as it makes sense. Water makes sense, while being hounded by dozens, hundreds, or thousands of "raiders" several times a year doesn't.

Water provides an additional basic need. Water provides options for hygiene. Water allows for more complex agriculture. The list goes on. . .

On the matter of timescale, I agree with Mister Keylocke, and I've said this many times in the past. Time Scale is one of the biggest deficiencies of this game, and the one of the greatest hindrances to the simulation of nearly all elements of the game.

Rather than regurgitate things I've been saying since like. . . Forever. . . Take a gander at this thread:

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=16559.0

In that thread, I go over timescales, using numbers broken down quite well (if I say so myself). One thing I dont cover, I think, is fast foward speeds. Because fast forward speeds could eliminate the need to skip months by allowing greater control over how fast we can fast foward.

Another thing I go over is tile size, and movement speed. Pawns should move much faster at the base speed, considering that each tile is a measly 3-5 square feet.

Ect. Ect.

7

Ideas / Re: Anti-sniper siege with off-the-shelf elements

« on: July 26, 2016, 11:58:03 PM »

I agree with Kegereneku on this. Better AI would be preferable.

On the other hand. . . Fog of War. Fog of war and Line of Sigh would make combat much more interesting! Think it meshes well with the spirit of this. My ideas on this, from previous posts:

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=20219.msg221244#msg221244
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=16339.msg178866#msg178866
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=16510.msg178853#msg178853

If raiders did build, if they continue to bomb and such, I think we need FoW/LoS. They need to be able to see us, we need to be able to see them. The utter confusion when shells start exploding on your base due to a lack of diligence in maintaining awareness of your territory... Would be so beautiful.

8

Ideas / Re: UI Graphical Armor Slot

« on: July 26, 2016, 11:36:31 PM »

I agree one-hundred percent. I actually wrote a suggestion similar to this a long time ago.

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=11339.msg113549#msg113549

and

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=16523.msg178559#msg178559

9

Ideas / Re: Water System In Rimworld

« on: July 26, 2016, 11:21:50 PM »

A good suggestion that has been beaten to death. I agree one-hundred percent that the next logical step in the evolution of the simulation aspect of the game, would be a system for water as a need.

10

Ideas / Re: Prepare Carefully integration

« on: July 26, 2016, 11:19:46 PM »

I think I wrote a suggestion for this the other day. . .

At any rate, I agree, there is no reason why this shouldn't be in the base game, considering the other things that were given to us from mods were integrated into the base game with this version (Much of EdB's Work).

Like others have said, how does this not fit in with the game considering the inclusion of a scenario editor? It is the obvious next step or evolution. It will give more control over the start people want. Why is that bad? With this and the scenario editor, people can start however they wish. It has absolutely no negative effect on anyone, and nothing but a positive effect. Even those who wish a more hardcore or "classic" start can still have such, and even more so.

11

Ideas / Re: Please remove human pawns eating corpses.

« on: July 21, 2016, 04:16:24 PM »

People don't go berserk when they're forced to turn to cannibalism, there's plenty of historical evidence of that. Actually, people don't really go berserk. It's incredibly rare. The vast majority of humans do not have it in them in any way. It's a 1 in 10 million kind of thing.

I second this. However, when someone does go berserk, the chances of "infecting" other people is certainly a "thing". Eating corpses ritually or as a mean of celebrating conquest has been documented among many cultures. People tend to eat what is available and most satisfying at that moment. In a time of famine, some might turn to eating rats, dogs, or horses that they would have otherwise not done. If someone is starving and the only option is a corpse, while it may not be ideal, is their only option. I imagine someone could get over the fact they are consuming a human corpse when nothing else is available, especially if the group supports one another. Doing so when you are by yourself would be considerably easier, while objections of a majority might make it a very difficult thing to do. If it isn't in your tradition, consuming someone you know would be very hard, while consuming a stranger (especially one that meant you harm) would be easier.

12

Ideas / Re: I want more "Weird and Spacey" Stuff

« on: July 21, 2016, 04:06:47 PM »

I would suggest you take a look at this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pIZyKif0bFbBWten4drrm7kfSSfvBoJPgG9-ywfN8j8/pub

It will give you an idea of what he is and is not willing to implement into the lore. It also explains some things current within the lore.

I'm of the same opinion of you, the lore is extremely lacking and the exclusion of certain sci-fi staples is truly depressing and limiting. We must rely on the modding community to perhaps explore the most interesting elements of the sci-fi genre. This may very well be for the best, because if the base game forced a certain type of sci-fi, some might not enjoy it. Tynan is giving us the framework, the skeleton and it's muscles, allowing modders to "skin" it as they wish.

13

Ideas / Re: Separate sexuality from the trait system.

« on: July 21, 2016, 03:56:26 PM »

HEY VAGABOND

Can you stop calling things deviant for literally no reason? If you're trying to play the "well it's not normal" card I'd like you to look at history and how plenty of people handle it before saying it's past the norm.

"Sexual deviance, and what is defined as sexually deviant, is culturally and historically specific. This concept refers to behaviors that involve individuals seeking erotic gratification through means that are considered odd, different, or unacceptable to either most or influential persons in one's community."

There is no deviancy at this point. The Romans were notorious for bending each other over from time to time and loving up some butt, historically lesbians have been supported through multiple religions as well as the general understanding that men have always been pervs and love to watch meaning that stigma normally goes out the window. We're here talking about same sex interactions, which in this day and age are pretty commonplace/norm; now you want to argue on the forums about why you're watching a colonist make love to the colony dog, or why he's jackin' it in the corner dressed like a hotdog then we'll talk but you're slinging words at this point and it seems rather dumb to just let you do it without making sure you understand what you're actually saying.

It is deviant, because, biologically speaking, we evolved to reproduce sexually between a male and female. Deviance isn't a bad thing, other primates display deviant sexual behaviors. If for some reason, a person has deviant sexual habits, it isn't a cause for alarm.

Your quote, I don't understand how this champions the lashing you are attempting to deal me (unjustly). How does that not apply to my stance? Is a man fornicating with another man odd? Check, but accepted. Is it different then the majority of our species? Check, but again, accepted. Is it unaccepted? There are at least as many, but probably a great deal more people who are strictly against it than there are people who practice such behaviors. Then there are a great deal many people who find it unacceptable to themselves, but don't care if others do it. Again, there are at least as many of them as there are people who are sexually deviant, if not more. So, tell me, how is that quote not in support of my position?

As for the Romans. . . Or other such examples of sexual deviancy. . . While I imagine we could brainstorm a list of people who we could apply labels such as gay or lesbian to, are you so sure that in these cultures or time periods, these people even considered themselves as such? That they were simply hedonistic and enjoying a romp in a moment of ecstasy is more likely. A priestess of some pagan religion might perform deviant sexual acts with another woman, but do either of these women consider themselves lesbians or bi-sexual? Or are they simply women, doing their duty to their god? Would a primate consider itself bisexual, simply because he decided to have sexual intercourse with a primate of the same sex - or gay/lesbian at that? Or is it simply doing it because it is there, but at the end of the day, it understand it's biological and troop obligation?

In the end, they are all acting in a deviant manner, one that their physiology doesn't promote - though it may support such things, as creative use of non-promoting orifices or appendages may be used creatively for sexual stimulation.

Finally, you have me pegged poorly, given we have cannibalism and a select group of deviant sexual forms, I wouldn't be opposed in the least to beastiality or colonists pleasuring themselves. I'm not against sexual deviancy in the least, I accept other peoples practices, even if I do not engage in them myself. Just as I accept other's opinions or viewpoints, even if I do not agree with them.

My only desire is for the game to be as realistic as possible in it's simulation of humanity, combat, water, electricity, construction, time, ect.

14

Ideas / Re: Separate sexuality from the trait system.

« on: July 21, 2016, 02:30:55 AM »

First part is true. However, with those cultures that devolved (advanced, and perhaps devolved again), do you think something as simple as the need to procreate was left out? Only two technology levels, from what I can tell, seem capable of maintaining their population in the face of overwhelming numbers of sexually deviant individuals.

"Sexually deviant individuals"?

"Overwhelming numbers"?

Primitive tribes of hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves with large populations of deviant characters as they are, in general, of smaller numbers. The gene pool requires additional contribution to prevent defects.

I'm convinced now, that removing sexuality from traits may very well be the best thing. Instead just making it another, separate statistic. However, I also believe that the numbers reflect whatever is required (based on technology level) for the continuance of humans through procreation. The only issue I see, when it comes to higher tech levels increasing the amount of deviants, is that the technology actually makes up for the lack of standard procreation. What this means is that deviant couples could still be fertilized artificially and deviancy loses it's usefulness as a form of population control.

You're arguing from a false premise, i.e. that a society would fail if a non-trivial fraction did not reproduce every generation. While that would certainly be true if NOBODY reproduced, historically the hard caps on population size and growth haven't come from how many people are having heterosexual sex or how often. It's also worth noting raising children takes a lot of time and effort, and the role of kin selection in our species is significant — e.g. even if you never have children, but help raise your niece and nephew, you're still contributing to the survival of your own genes. (Interestingly, this may be a contributor to why humans survive so long past breeding age when most animals don't — if grandma and grandpa help take care of all their grandchildren, even though they can't have any more children of their own, they're still contributing to the success of their specific bloodlines and also the tribe overall, most of whom are also likely to be relatives.)

Also, would you mind not calling gay, bi, and trans people "deviants"? Thanks.

Sexually deviant is, by definition, a proper way to refer to such individuals, I don't understand your dislike of the term. Sexually, refering to sexual habits, and deviant or deviating from the norm. I refuse to pander to those whom become offended by such trivial things. I'll continue to use the terminology I deem appropriate, it isn't as if I am using explicit language or derogatory terms.

When I said overwhelming numbers, I was referring to the fact that glitterworld and urbworld cultures are capable of artificial insemination, vat growing and/or cloning. Through this, every member of their society could theoretically be sexually deviant with no effect on the gene pool or the continuation of the species.

At the same time, indworlders, midworlders, caveworlders, ect, couldn't cope with having large populations of deviant individuals.

My post was in response to another's, in context, you wouldn't so easily be able to refute my stance as being based upon false premise. What I gathered from the posts before mine, the other posters were suggesting that regardless of the technology level of the culture in it's current state, since it is so far into the future and post human diaspora into space, that sexual deviancy would be normal and not even on anyone's mind. I disagreed with that, and suggested that perhaps urb/glitterworld societies might have continued in that tradition, but those that devolved or evolved only to devolve culturally, would have had their views devolve naturally as well.

"While that would certainly be true if NOBODY reproduced, historically the hard caps on population size and growth haven't come from how many people are having heterosexual sex or how often."

I would like to see your evidence for this claim, because personally, I can't fathom a historical example where population isn't governed by heterosexual sex. Historically, it was the only way to have children. So the amount of people coupling, and how often they were able to (successfully), directly impacts the population. If you are just referring to region stability, surplus, and health, then you might as well conjure yourself a red herring, because that is a given. Regardless of such factors, it would still be the responsibility of males and females to copulate naturally. To recover from periods of rampant famine or disease (in which child mortality is high), males and females would need to copulate and reproduce is greater numbers to return a gain on population. Regional Stability is a vast category that can mean anything from natural disaster to war. Surplus and the curbing of  famine or disease would allow the warrior caste to be replenished to maintain a fighting force.

The final part of your post is interesting, and accurate, however I don't see the relevance. Were you suggesting that deviant relatives would serve a useful role as caretakers? If so, then the same can be done by non-deviant relatives. It is common knowledge that among almost, if not all cultures, communal child rearing was practiced in some form. Even by the community as a whole, when communal child rearing began to fade, you still had familial child rearing. Eventually is was, for the most part replaced by the nuclear family.  As I said though, non-deviant relatives are just as capable of filling this role as deviant relatives. Would deviant relatives or community members be ideally suited for this? Sure, however deviant folk are just as capable of having highly prized and useful skills and could still better serve utilizing them rather than caring for children.

That is neither here nor there, as we were (i thought) speaking about the ratios of deviants to non-deviants, and further break down the ratios of one form of sexual deviancy to another. This way we can formulate, and agree upon the numbers and make a unified suggestion to Tynan. This way he knows what we want.

15

Ideas / Re: Separate sexuality from the trait system.

« on: July 20, 2016, 05:20:33 PM »

Not a bad first post, Gladeflower.

Mostly I opened the post window to address the claim that we're dealing with people from all eras of humanity, because it's massively false. I mean, I get what you meant to say: we've got primitives, transhumanism and every spectrum in between, but it's all one era; Post-Earth diaspora.

Humanity developed on Earth well past our current era, and developed cryptosleep and semi-reliable interstellar travel. It's conceivable that we managed to stomp out homophobia along the way.

It's also possible that we didn't, or the far-flung seeds of humanity devolved to less enlightened views.

But honestly, that's nether here, not there. We're not talking about futuristic attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. We're talking about how they exist within the playable portion of the game, and how that portrayal impacts purple people playing that game in the here and now.

First part is true. However, with those cultures that devolved (advanced, and perhaps devolved again), do you think something as simple as the need to procreate was left out? Only two technology levels, from what I can tell, seem capable of maintaining their population in the face of overwhelming numbers of sexually deviant individuals.

Imagine if everyone practice some form of deviancy in a culture. You'd have to hope that the homosexual male considered the transgender female who believes she is a man would procreate with each other. This relies on the female-male being interested in males still, not females, and the homosexual man being attracted to a female that has the appearance and "soul" of a man, but still has female parts.

Or as another example: a man who is okay with bestiality, procreating with a woman who believes she has the soul of a cat http://goo.gl/5YHVbR . This too assumes that the woman-cat is interested in human males, and not male cats.

Primitive tribes of hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves with large populations of deviant characters as they are, in general, of smaller numbers. The gene pool requires additional contribution to prevent defects.

I suppose in less enlightened cultures, social pressure could still force the marriage of homosexuals with a heterosexual, or even a homosexual of another gender. . . In situations like that, we'd still get the contribution. This would actually be an interesting mechanic in the event of children being implemented, forcing procreation/marriage under the threat of expulsion from the community. Mothers and father's could pressure children into productive relationships for the benefit of the communities' population.

Religion could be another form of social pressure, if such religions exist, which would make sense for certain technology levels. Since those doctrines were created for a reason within historical human society.

I'm convinced now, that removing sexuality from traits may very well be the best thing. Instead just making it another, separate statistic. However, I also believe that the numbers reflect whatever is required (based on technology level) for the continuance of humans through procreation. The only issue I see, when it comes to higher tech levels increasing the amount of deviants, is that the technology actually makes up for the lack of standard procreation. What this means is that deviant couples could still be fertilized artificially and deviancy loses it's usefulness as a form of population control.

All interesting mechanics to consider for the game, though.

Pawns are definitely not all white, and given how far in the future rimworld is and the strange way humanity is spreading it's possible that almost no one seen in game actively has any traces of old earth cultural races to begin with.

My thoughts exactly, a good point.