Ludeon Forums
- August 17, 2022, 05:55:03 AM
- Welcome, Guest
![]() |
3. If pawns should carry by weight, pigs suddenly become super haulers even though they have no hands or even especially strong jaw strength. No two ways about it. Pigs are pretty strong. The same point more generally about animals. Mufallos are STRONG, so they should be good haulers, right? I mean on their own. Elephants at least have trunks.
A simple change to the hauling system would fix just about everything with hauling.
1) Tend to priority stockpiles. So a critical stockpile that is low will get serviced first.
2) Bring items into stockpiles. So crops in the fields are brought to the nearest stockpile. Items that are too far away should be forbidden. Most items drop forbidden by default.
3) Consolidate items and sort inventory. So low priority storage (exposed crops) gets pulled into preferred storage (fridge).
Yeah, relations are a bit on the ridiculous side, my lone explorer from a glitterworld was visited by her husband and her mother was on the run from tribals and begged to join (she still is, btw). Later on I found her uncle in a cryptosleep shrine.For spacers, I usually assume that they had been on the same ship that my initial three colonists were from, and they happened to land elsewhere on the planet and joined a faction instead of starting their own.
I mean yeah relations are a nice thing to have in the game, but we re on a rimworld god knows where and meet family all the time, it makes sense for outlanders and for tribals, but it is really unlikely for spacers. In my opinion some distinction would be nice, tribals should have lots of family because they re basically human zerglings, outlanders not so much and spacer family should be rare.
Some kind of interaction with visiting family would be nice as well, like a joy activity that gives a mood bonus, e.g. +5 mood for 3 days, "had a good talk with my niece/brother etc...".
Right now its like oh hey you re there and I ll be sad when you die, but I cant do much else with you.
That just shows again that squirrels are more dangerous than assault rifles.Well of course Iron Man wouldn't be killed by squirrels. In the Marvel universe, squirrels act on the side of Justice, as can be seen below:I don't expect our weapons to work like in a movie, but I can't imagine a skilled shooter not being able to hit a group of tribesmen charging at him badly enough to down a lot of them.
Somethink that has been criticized before: I personally don't like how armor reduces damage by a given percentage.
To use squirrels as an example again: A colonist in power armor could still be downed by them. Imagine Iron Man dying because of a mad squirrel ...
Tested it: Colonist with melee skill 8 and normal power armor was attacked by five manhunting squirrels, took out for and was then downed by the fifth one.
The mechanic's prevalence is devoid of realism, so there must be some gameplay reasoning for it...
It is devoid of realism. Realism would be 1 bullet = 1 dead pawn 50% of the time or more. The game play reason is that losing a finger is FAR more fun than "my best shooter took a single wild bullet in the torso from an assault rifle, he's dead now"
If a gunshot victim’s heart is still beating upon arrival at a hospital, there is a 95 percent chance of survival, Dr. DiMaio said. (People shot in vital organs usually do not make it that far, he added.)
Shots to roughly 80 percent of targets on the body would not be fatal blows, Dr. Fackler said. Still, he added, it is like roulette.