Show posts

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Thundercraft

I could have sworn that, some time ago, I read a topic on Ludeon's forums explaining a weird way in which certain combinations of mods will, by chance, result in completely unpredictable and sometimes very bizarre game behavior. The topic explained that this issue sometimes makes solving or even tracking down the bugs and mod conflicts that users report even more difficult for mod authors.

I seem to recall that  it had to do with game memory and/or the way mods are loaded.

I really thought I had bookmarked this topic. I've searched and searched through my bookmarks and game notes, but I can't seem to find it now.

Is my memory failing me? Was this a thing? If so, perhaps someone can point me to the topic or give me a hint for the title or subject matter? Please?
This is such a cool mod!

For me, though, the hacked Mechanoids look far too similar to enemy Mechanoids. I'd love to have an option to change their color to make it easy to distinguish them.
Quote from: Kirby23590 on November 25, 2018, 12:35:28 PM
Go for the "Game of the Year" Award...

Since the "Labor of Love" award. Rimworld is fairly a new game that just jumped out of Early Access, and adding new free content or new updates is kinda low at this point. Unless 1.1 update is a thing...

Hmm... Yeah, I see your point. My reasoning for thinking of "Labor of Love" was because it's been in development since 2013 and created by a small, indie developer.
General Discussion / RimWorld Steam Awards... Category?
November 25, 2018, 10:56:10 AM
Looking on the Steam store, I noticed that all games currently have a section under the heading that says,
"Nominate this game for the Steam Awards." (Yes, Steam has had something like this in previous years.) Anyway, there's a selection of several awards that a game can be nominated for. And I was curious what others think would be the most appropriate category for RimWorld. The awards:

  • The "Game of the Year" Award
  • The "VR Game of the Year" Award
  • The "Labor of Love" Award
  • The "Best Environment" Award
  • The "Better with Friends" Award
  • The "Best Alternate History" Award
  • The "Most Fun with a Machine" Award

Obviously, several of these are inappropriate, such as "Best with Friends," "VR Game of the Year" and "Best Alternate History." And I suspect "Most Fun with a Machine" is intended for games that revolve around machines, such as where you pilot a starship, tank, car or mecha.

Myself, I'm leaning towards nominating RimWorld for the "Labor of Love" award.
Those instructions are for a Mac. For Windows, this will not work as we can not follow Step 5 exactly: "Right click file > Get info > Lock". And, without this step, RimWorld tries to replace your new replacement thumbnail with the old thumbnail, making the effort fruitless. (BTW: This is mostly relevant for scenarios as those have a boring, default thumbnail. For mods, the thumbnail is automatically generated based on the main image.)

Instead, we have to load the image into software that will lock the file for us. Sadly, most image editing software won't do this. Myself, I managed to do it by loading the image into LibreOffice Draw (aka, OpenOffice Draw), which is a free program. Then we go to the Scenario Editor and upload (or update) our scenario and then, profit.

Though, according to this RimWorld Base article, replacing the thumbnail while having RimWorld running in the background will also prevent your replacement from being overwritten with the old default thumbnail. Though, I haven't tried that method.
Ideas / Re: Your Cheapest Ideas
July 20, 2017, 02:11:29 AM
I was just trying to write up the in-game description of a custom scenario when I ran into the character limit. Apparently, we are limited to 988 characters...

This seems too short to tell a reasonably detailed story background. You couldn't even make it an even 1000? Myself, I think we should be allowed at least 1500 characters, if not more.

Am I missing something? I mean, what's stopping you from increasing this? AFAIK, you could increase this number and that would not even break the use of existing scenarios.
Quote from: NoImageAvailable on July 16, 2017, 05:56:13 PMThis is impossible to do without DLL-modding as carry weight is not a stat.

I believe you are mistaken. Here is the <equippedStatOffsets> code that Mercer's Backpacks used for the small and large backpacks, respectively:



This doubles and triples the default 35 kg carry capacity, respectively.

Granted, the comments do mention that players may not be able to use the full increased carry capacity if a colonist is limited by stack size. So, faltonico is correct in that a stack increase mod (like Increased Stack or Stack XXL) may be needed to take full advantage of this. But, there are plenty of heavy items in the game that would exceed 35 kg without reaching a stack limit. And, judging by the number of subscribers to stack mods, nearly a hundred thousand players use them. (Probably closer to 200 k, I'd guess.)

I have a suggestion: How about a new type of Powered Armor that exists only to increase human carry_capacity, to allow colonists to carry more than 35 kg as part of a caravan (such as to trade with a faction or attack a raider's base)? I'm thinking of calling it "Carry Exo-Frame".

My inspiration came from Mercer's Backpacks. It's an interesting concept, but it seemed totally unrealistic and very OP to me. Vanilla only allows colonists to carry 35 kg (about 77 lbs), including the weight of their weapon and all their gear. Statistics say that the average human weighs 136.7 pounds (worldwide, for both men and women, including those who are skinny or obese). And 77 lbs is over half their weight. Carrying that much for several miles, each way, would damage knees and, likely, give them a spinal injury. The idea of carrying more, without hydraulic or motorized assistance to lessen the load, would be insane. Having them wear a "backpack" would only add weight, not allow them to carry more.

Having an exo-frame for more carrying capacity, however, is totally believable and realistic. Indeed, the U.S. military has been developing this technology for some time and already has prototypes. (Read the Wikipedia article on Powered exoskeleton or Google it for details.) And this approach could be game-balanced, as long as it required unlocking research and needed a certain amount of work and resources to build.
Ideas / Re: Your Cheapest Ideas
July 14, 2017, 07:09:24 PM
Quote...what ideas do you have for the game that are really cheap to implement?

Something that would be really cheap to implement would be adding support for .JPG images as the Preview for mods. Currently, Preview.png in the /about/ folder must be in .PNG format. And many mods seem to use large images, such as 800x600 or even larger. As a result, the Preview.png in most mods constitute at least 80% of the file size of the mod, sometimes 90% or more. And since many players these days use many dozens or even hundreds of mods, this really adds up. The use of .JPG would drastically reduce this. Granted, JPEG is not the best choice for certain types of images, such as those with a lot of red. But, as long as the compression isn't too high, the difference would be barely noticeable for many.
Ideas / Re: Frequent Suggestions Topic!
June 30, 2017, 02:35:56 PM
The following has been brought up several times in the past and, recently, I've seen it suggested in the comments for several different mods. Unfortunately, it sounds like this is something that can not be accomplished via modding:

Tynan, is there any possibility that you would reconsider your position on allowing players to to remove bionic parts from dead humans (or, at the least, dead members of their colony)? As I understand it, the primary reason the idea was shot down was due to concerns over game balance. Specifically, since raiders frequently have bionic parts, such a capability would allow players to gain a lot of them, which could make players considerable money and, potentially, trivialize the difficulty of obtaining them.

I do recognize the logic of such arguments. However, players can ALREADY harvest bionics from colonists or raiders. The trick is to do it before they're dead. As such, some players have a habit of trying to capture raiders with bionics so they can do just that.

Anyway, I can't imagine that it could be terribly difficult to mostly or entirely mitigate concerns over game balance. Merely, it would require nerfing the frequency of how often they appear on raiders so they become uncommon. That, and/or locking the ability for our doctors to remove bionics from corpses behind new, end-game research. It could be called "Bionic Reclamation" or something.

I mean... come on! :-\ Removing bionics from dead colonists just makes so, sooo much sense! What logical, real-life reason could there be not to recycle, say, a peg leg or a bionic arm - especially in a post-apocalyptic setting where resources are scarce?
Quote from: BlackSmokeDMax on June 20, 2017, 07:35:44 AMThe reason is game balance, players were creating situations where the raiders were always bathed in light and the defender player units were in darkness. Making it too easy.

Logically, the one does not necessarily equate the other. The fact that players could use it to their advantage does not necessarily mean that the game became too easy. Rather, that would be a matter of severity. There's a tipping point at which the game becomes too easy (which, btw, varies from person to person).

Besides: Even if that was an exploit that made the game too easy, it was up to the player to intentionally take advantage of it. If doing so hurt their game experience, they could opt to just not do it. Otherwise, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Quote from: BlackSmokeDMax on June 20, 2017, 07:35:44 AMThe reason to use bionic eyes is simple... pawns that have lost an eye. So, not necessarily for an upgrade from a perfectly good eye, but to replace a damaged/scarred or non existent eye.

Just because Bionic Eyes have one purpose does not necessarily mean they can not have another. Obviously, in a future where bionic eyes are possible, the primary purpose would be to help those missing an eye or with a serious eye condition. But, transhumanists point out that as cybernetic enhancements become feasible, humans will inevitably opt to artificially 'enhance' themselves, whether for sports or other purposes. At least, I'm sure military branches the world over would be interested, to say nothing of spies, soldiers for hire and gangsters.

The very fact that Bionic Eyes do actually increase a vision stat on colonists is proof that Tynan was thinking along those lines. My argument is to take this to its logical conclusion.

Actually, all bionics support this assertion. You can't honestly tell me that no player has ever installed a bionic arm or leg (or a Scyther blade) on a colonist merely for the combat bonus(es), rather than merely because they're missing an arm or a leg.

Quote from: jamaicancastle on June 20, 2017, 08:24:19 AMAt a point, the gun is as accurate as it's going to get. If you mis-see or misjudge where you're pointing it, that's one source of inaccuracy, but another source of inaccuracy is that bullets just plain don't always go where the gun points...

In Bjorn's video I mention above, he explains that there are three separate things which affect gun accuracy: {1} The colonist's skill (with manipulation and eyesight adjustments), {2} the gun itself (including gun type, quality, and wear), and {3} cover.

The way I interpreted what Bjorn was saying was that Bionic Eyes can only affect {1}, the colonist part of the equation. And that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the hard limit of 100% on the colonist's skill bonus, which Bionic Eyes can not exceed.

As you point out, there's only so much accuracy you can get out of {2}, a weapon. But the game calculates the influence of {1} the combination of the colonist's skill and eyesight, but still treats {1} separately from {2} and {3}. I'm just arguing that a colonist's skill should be treated as completely separate from their eyesight handicap or bonus. The two are not directly related.

Quote from: Limdood on June 20, 2017, 09:46:44 AM
also, the superior sight can make up for a crappy gun, reduced manipulation (scars, missing fingers), or cover.  That's significant.

The way Bjorn explained in his video, Bionic Eyes can only help with {1}, the skill portion of the accuracy equation. The only way it could help make up for a crappy gun or cover would be if the shooter had less than 100% skill accuracy - that is, from having a shooting skill that was far from being maxed.

Granted, it does sound like Bionic Eyes could make up for reduced manipulation, even with a shooting skill of 20. But how often does your champion shooter end up with reduced manipulation? It would be a situation rarely taken advantage of.

Likewise, allowing Bionic Eyes to give a small bonus to {1} Skill accuracy slightly beyond 100% even with a skill of 19 or 20 would be a rare and definitely late-game situation that would be too uncommon to be exploited regularly by players.

Also, it really boils down to degrees and severity. You would not argue that allowing something like 105% or 120% accuracy to {1}, the skill portion of accuracy equations, would be game-breaking... would you?

Quote from: jamaicancastle on June 20, 2017, 08:24:19 AMHaving great eyes isn't going to magically affect the external ballistics of your weapon.

True enough. But having above average vision would help, just like having poor eyesight can hurt accuracy, regardless of the type or quality of gun you are using.

Quote from: jamaicancastle on June 20, 2017, 08:24:19 AMNot to mention, we can imagine any gun in the game designed for shooting at long distances has an appropriate sight or scope mounted.

The only true long-range weapon is the Sniper rifle. The next best range is the Doomsday rocket, followed by the Bolt-action rifle. I'll concede that the Sniper rifle and Doomsday have a scope. I suppose it's even possible for the Bolt-action. But the rest probably only has a simple sight. And above average eyesight can surely help with simple sights.

Quote from: jamaicancastle on June 20, 2017, 08:24:19 AMHaving a zoom function in your eye would be more convenient than a telescopic scope, but I don't think it would be meaningfully more effective.

We don't really know what kind of technology is involved in these Bionic Eyes... do we? Well, even today we're seeing some remarkable bionic eye technology:
New Bionic Lens Promises Superhuman Vision

Quote, "...promising to give everyone perfect vision three times better than 20/20".

Three times better than 20/20, with just a prosthetic lens? Consider that a moment. Also:

"Unboxing" Google Smart Contact Lens

And as technology marches on, the size of things shrink. Now we have miniature, portable backscatter x-ray machines:
World's first handheld backscatter X-ray machine

After a few centuries more, we'd probably see an x-ray device small enough for bionic eyes.

Remember Batou's new eyes in Ghost in the Shell (2017)? How about not only zoom magnification, but also seeing in the infrared and ultraviolet? How about having a HUD display with stats like distance, velocity, and wind direction and speed.

Heck, with a computer you could even have a prediction algorithm to predict where the target will be by the time the bullet reaches it. We already see target prediction in computer games. And this is old school stuff. Target prediction for bombers was already a thing back in WWII, using gears instead of microchips or transistors.
I was just watching this video:
RimWorld Science Alpha 17: Cover and Accuracy — RimWorld Alpha 17 Weapons and Cover SCIENCE!!!

Around 1:48, Bjorn explains how manipulation and eyesight affects shooting accuracy. He explains that there is a hard limit on how much good eyesight can benefit shooting accuracy. Apparently, not even two of the best bionic eyes in the world can push shooting accuracy beyond 100%. :(

Consider that the closer a colonist's shooting skill gets to 20, the closer their base accuracy gets to 100%. So, if I'm understanding correctly: At some point, a colonist's shooting skill becomes high enough that bionic eyes no longer provide any benefit.

Really? Does that sound right to you? If we had telescopic bionic eyes comparable to that of Ghost in the Shell, Shadowrunner, Cyberpunk 2020, etc, I would think that they would always enhance eyesight above baseline humans - unless, perhaps, you got the cheap, substandard stuff. If cyber eyes do enhance eyesight, then shouldn't it be a given that having such would increase shooting accuracy, even if the person in question was already a world-class sniper?

I don't see how having a shooting skill of 18 or 20 or whatever should be a hard limit - a wall beyond which bionic eyes can't help you. That's very counter-intuitive, anyway, if not illogical.

On the subject of brightness and darkness as it affects accuracy:

While it used to be easier to hit targets in a brightly lit area and it used to be more difficult to hit targets enveloped in darkness, this is no longer the case as of A16. But... why? What purpose did this change serve?

Obviously, it was much more realistic when brightness level affected accuracy. Was it a game balance issue? If so, couldn't this affect have been nerfed somewhat instead of removed entirely? Again, this is counter-intuitive and illogical.

Further, having to deal with light levels added a more depth to game strategy. Sure, players often illuminated the area inside their kill-boxes and outside their walls. But this took a degree of thinking, planning and effort. It's not entirely free, either, if the lights require electricity.

Please, consider re-introducing the illumination impact on shooting accuracy.

Also, please give players a reason to have bionic eyes on their uber-skilled shooters. Bionic eyes are expensive. And surgery success is not always guaranteed. There's a certain risk involved. Why go through the expense and risks for no benefit?
Ideas / Animals with accurate <baseBodySize>
June 19, 2017, 09:49:45 AM
As a modder, I've taken a close look at various /Core/ XML files. Recently, I've taken a look at animals and pets like dogs, mostly to compare them to modded animals to see how certain tags are supposed to work.

Well, I was surprised to discover that not only do animals lack any sort of <weight> tag, but that <baseBodySize> tags are not very precise. I don't care about fictional animals like the Thrumbo. And I could imagine some variance, since this is set on an alien world some centuries or millennia in the future. But, sometimes, it's quite an inaccurate representation of their relative sizes. Examples:
  • Human : baseBodySize = 1.0
  • Elephant : baseBodySize = 4.0
  • Gazelle : baseBodySize = 0.7
  • Iguana : baseBodySize = 0.2
  • Dromedary : baseBodySize = 2.0
  • Yorkshire Terrier : baseBodySize = 0.3
  • Husky : baseBodySize = 1.0
  • Labrador Retriever : baseBodySize = 1.0
  • Wolf : baseBodySize = 0.85
  • Cow : baseBodySize = 2.0
Some of this breaks my suspension of disbelief. Why give the Husky and Labrador Retriever the same baseBodySize as humans? Is this an alternate reality where those are suppose to be very large breeds, on the same scale as the St. Bernard or Marmaduke? And why make the Wolf smaller than the Husky and Labrador Retriever, yet significantly more dangerous than them in combat?

According to Wikipedia (and other sources), here's the average weight:
  • Human : average (worldwide) = 62.0 kg (136.7 lb)
  • Elephant, African : average weight = 5897 kg (13000 lbs)
  • Elephant, Asian : average weight = 5443 kg (12000 lbs)
  • Gazelle, Dama (largest) : average weight = 57.5 kg (126.5 lbs)
  • Gazelle, Red-fronted (medium) : average weight = 29.7 kg (65 lbs)
  • Gazelle, Thomson's (medium) : average weight = 23.7 kg (52 lbs)
  • Iguana, Blue : average weight = 14 kg (31 lbs)
  • Iguana, Green : average weight = 4 kg (8.8)
  • Dromedary : average weight = 459 kg (1012.5 lbs)
  • Yorkshire Terrier : average weight = 3.2 kg (7 lbs)
  • Husky : average weight = 21.5 kg (47.5 lbs)
  • Labrador Retriever : average weight = 30.5 kg (67.2 lbs)
  • Wolf (Gray or Timber) : average weight = 40.6 kg (89.5 lbs)
  • Cattle ("Cow") : average weight = 907.2 kg (2000 lbs)
Granted, baseBodySize is certainly not meant to be the same thing as weight. However, there is a size relationship with weight and I can't imagine a better animal statistic to use.

If we were to use the human average weight as a baseline, then we could perhaps get a better idea of appropriate sizes by way of ratios and multiplication. For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume a baseBodySize of 1.0 equivalent to the Avg. Human Weight of 136.7 lb and call it "AHW". So...
  • Human : average (worldwide) = 62.0 kg (136.7 lb) = 1.0 AHW
  • Elephant, African : average weight = 5897 kg (13000 lbs) = 95.1 AHW
  • Elephant, Asian : average weight = 5443 kg (12000 lbs) = 87.8 AHW
  • Gazelle, Dama (largest) : average weight = 57.5 kg (126.5 lbs) = 0.93 AHW
  • Gazelle, Red-fronted (medium) : average weight = 29.7 kg (65 lbs) = 0.46 AHW
  • Gazelle, Thomson's (medium) : average weight = 23.7 kg (52 lbs) = 0.38 AHW
  • Iguana, Blue : average weight = 14 kg (31 lbs) = 0.23 AHW
  • Iguana, Green : average weight = 4 kg (8.8) = 0.06 AHW
  • Dromedary : average weight = 459 kg (1012.5 lbs) = 7.4 AHW
  • Yorkshire Terrier : average weight = 3.2 kg (7 lbs) = 0.05 AHW
  • Husky : average weight = 21.5 kg (47.5 lbs) = 0.35 AHW
  • Labrador Retriever : average weight = 30.5 kg (67.2 lbs) = 0.49 AHW
  • Wolf (Gray or Timber) : average weight = 40.6 kg (89.5 lbs) = 0.65 AHW
  • Cattle ("Cow") : average weight = 907.2 kg (2000 lbs) = 14.63 AHW
Some are close to baseBodySize - the Blue Iguana, for example, at 0.23. The Gazelle is okay, too. And I could forgive the large animals like the Elephant and Cow because: game balance. Also, I would imagine that the baseBodySize scale becomes exponential for anything larger than human. But, even being generous, there are large discrepancies with some of these (mostly the canines and other predators).
Looking on the Combat Extended GitHub wiki, I was reading the Creating an xpath patch page. And this part caught my attention:
QuoteCE adds two new patch operations to make creation of compatibility patches easier.


So, if I'm reading this right, CE is what adds this patch operation?

Is there any way I could use this patch operation outside of CE, for a completely unrelated mod? This would be very handy for use outside of CE...

Will Tynan eventually add this into RimWorld itself?
Ideas / Re: Frequent Suggestions Topic!
June 18, 2017, 01:17:35 AM
Quote from: b0rsuk on March 27, 2017, 02:10:12 PM
Idea that is frequently suggested and won't be implemented:
Containers, barrels, chests, shelves or equipment racks with increased capacity or ability to stack items...

I second this notion. It could be a significant boon to the game. And the concept is quite popular, as indicated by the number of mods which accomplish increased storage space. There is at least one sophisticated container mod I'm aware of. But, in addition, there have been several "storage rack" mods (i.e., modded equipment racks) as well as several to increase the maximum size of item stacks.

Also, I'm reminded of the not uncommon suggestion to give RimWorld a 'z-level' or third dimension, like Dwarf Fortress. That is technically impractical, nearly impossible, and it sounds like that will never happen. However, if you think about it, there are three main benefits of a z-level: (1) It makes the map bigger, allowing more space to expand, (2) it allows for more efficiency, through movement and item storage and (3) it allows more opportunity for mining and resource gathering.

With storage, rack and item-stack mods, players can gain a lot of point (2) and even a bit of (1). That is, better item storage leaves more space to build things like more or bigger bedrooms, more solar panels, and bigger killboxes. With bigger maps and the Large Map Save Game Fix, players can get some of the benefits of (1). And with mods like Quarry, Deep Core Miner and Sustainable Drill, we can (3) keep digging for more resources.