Messages

No idea why it was removed to begin with. I fully support that.

I had several request of neurotrainer for some useless reward. And usually I have all the good request about 2days in a new game, when I'm struggling to have a bed for everyone. Then when I'm settled, they ask for 200~shiv. All the time. I'm fairly certain we are in the prison architect universe, and the prisoners are sending me the requests.

Sorry, was away for holidays stuff.

I don't think the biomes should be balanced for the sake of balancing them. But I think that right now, desert are way, way too easy. Mostly because water is not modeled in the game as a need. Which is the biggest reason why desert are not populated IRL. Crops grow just fine without water in rimworld, and our people never drink. Eventually, desert are easy.
When you have a desert and an "extreme" desert, you expect a challenge. Just like you have with pretty much all the cold biome (in varying degree of difficulty). But right now, arid bushland is pretty much an easy mode temperate, desert is easy, and extreme desert is not really difficult.

Eventually, people looking for a bit of challenge are pushed toward cold biomes. And that get a bit stale after a while.

Ever seen a tree explode because it freezes (ice volume expansion)? I have, once; it's not something you want to be nearby as 2' long 'splinters' can really ruin your day, plus it's completely unpredictable (unlike, say, a dead limb dropping: an experienced woodsie could spot the latter potential)

There are still massive forest in boreal... forest IRL. Siberia is full of forest, despite the cold. In game, your tree will die, and they will not grow back. A few years in, the area you are in is a desert. Which makes no sense. It's like a Heisenberg thing, you can see the tree die so they all die, apparently. But if we are not there to see them, they don't. We solved the mystery. Quantum physicists and philosopher around the world are probably rejoicing.

Cold species should grow in cold biomes (at least the one where they are supported). Like pines.

WRT the headgear issue I find it odd that bowler (derby) hats offer no extra protection; that's what they were designed for initially (cf c18-c19 gamekeepers, then police/security forces before helmets). WRT temp protection perhaps make tribal veil (or even headdress)  similar to a balaclava/scarf combo, with accompanying social penalty? As said above, leather tuques would be effectively useless vs -ive temp

Ushanka want a word with you :
https://www.furhatworld.com/images_wm/large/Silver_Fox_FurLeather_Russian_Ushanka_Hat_1455.jpg

They are made of fur, but in game fur and leather is pretty much the same. Thrumbo fur, chinchilla fur are both leather in game. And you can't deny they look cool.

The current skill leveling is definitely stupid. It doesn't make any sense that a pawn who has been cutting stone blocks don't gain skill improvements but construction instead. The same applies for drug making, it doesn't make any sense that drugs add intelligence. Ever watched news of illegal drug labs burning to ashes due to retarded handling? People that make drugs aren't particularly lucid.

Well, there is a reason why more intelligent people are better drug manufacturers.

But your rights. Drugs should, if anything, be governed by the medical skill.

That's chemistry, not medicine. Which is not ingame, so the closest would be crafting I guess.
And yes, you don't need much intelligence to produce drug. To develop them, sure. This is not harder than working in a factory, where you use the process and tools someone else developed.

This is a subject that has me bothering for a long time now. The cold/hot biomes are completely imbalanced. And I don't see the reason why. Both biomes should offer a challenge, which is increasing the more extreme we are, but currently the hot biomes are a lot more easy than the cold one. For no reasons.

First clothing, while in hot biomes you'll make duster and cowboy hat, most likely, the cold equivalent is the parka and tuque.
-duster cost less to make than parka (80 vs 120 ingredients, we are looking at a 33% cost increase)
-duster have lesser move penalty than parka (0.04 vs 0.05). You also need to add the snow move penalty. Thick snow is 52% move speed, while sand is only 76%. Overall, you are much, much slower in a cold biome.
-duster doesn't have work penalty. Parka does. Considering how much it would be a micromanagement tedium to remove the parka everytime they work, you can consider that a permanent penalty.

-tuque can only be made of non leather. Which make it harder to make in the beginning of the game, since you need to grow the plant, while you can make cowboy hat at any time.
-cowboy hat offer a boost in social impact. Tuque offer nothing.
-tuque are faster to make. But considering both are fast anyway...

On the subject of clothing, hot biomes win without contest. So much, that I don't use parka myself. They are terrible at everything. Instead, I use good quality jacket. I suppose they are mandatory early game and for extreme biomes, or if you plan on going into space, but I avoid them as much as I can. They are that bad.
Ironically, a few alphas ago, when I used parkas, I had numerous "slept in the cold" situation because my parkas where really good, dropping the temperature too much indoors. Don't know if it was fixed.

On the subject of the temperature effect itself. Skipping the hypothermia/heatstroke, since it's more or less equivalent.
-crops will die when temperature is somewhere below 0°c (about -10°c I think). Crops will not die when temperature is too high, they will slow down the growth, or stop growing. Meaning your crops are never at risk in a hot biome. Solar flare ? Who cares. Heat wave ? I can wait. Not to mention in a cold biome the early game is a rush for sun lamp, and enough power for it. In hot biomes, you can play the whole game without them. It is massive.
-animals will leave the biome in winter, for cold biome. Leaving only predator, that can, and will, attack your pawn SEVERAL time a day because they suddenly find themselves without food source. In autumn, consider yourself at siege by the fauna. This is due to the fact that grass will be covered in snow, and die. In summer it barely grow fast enough to sustain the new arrivals (I tend to have hunting frenzy in spring, before they can leave), and if you have a poorly timed cold snap, they will likely leave again.
In hot biome, this is less an issue. While desert have less animals, they usually don't leave.

About the biome itself.
-I think that part is fairly balanced. Cold biomes have less room to build due to lot of water, but more place to plant crop. Which is kinda useless because you need heater and sunlamp anyway. Hot biomes have less room for crops, more room to expand.
-trees are abundant in boreal forest, but they don't regrow easily, or even at all. A poison ship/alphabeaver will destroy the trees in a large area, and they will probably never regrow. Hot biomes have a few trees, but they regrow fast. Overall, in a hot biomes you need to plant them, so I guess it's a minor victory for cold biomes.
-agave/berries can be harvested all year long in a hot biomes. It is mostly a summer thing in cold biomes
-ambrosia sprout, mushrooms and seasonal plant is a clear win for hot biomes. They can safely harvest them. In cold biomes, it's unlikely they'll survive long enough to be harvested.
-caves are a mix of penalties/advantages in a hot biomes. In a cold biomes, it's only negative. The mushroom will never grow to be harvested, they'll die before. Leaving you only angry bugs, and a bit of jelly.

Electricity.
-cold biomes use heaters, which are less expensive to build and to run than the cooler. Also coolers need access to an unroofed area.
-on the other hand, you'll need sunlamp before the first winter. And they take a lot of electricity. A hot biome can mostly run without sunlamp for a while, in the case of the arid shrubland, you can run a colony forever without it.

Contrary to popular belief, cold biomes actually lose again. I'll take a real example. I have 2 colonies, one of 9 people, on a boreal forest, living under a mountain (no hydro, crops are in a "hidden" valley). The other, a 13 people colony on arid shrubland (no mountain). I have a mod for the regular lamp consumption, but it shouldn't interfere, since both biomes will use them in the overall same amount anyway (29 vs 28). Using the power tool from the manager mod.
My boreal one use 17.1kw during the day, vs 7.9kw for the arid one. That's more than double. And this is during summer, where my heaters are not even working at 50% capacity. The reason is the sun lamp (8.7kw by themselves, that's the entire arid electric consumption), but my heaters are also using more (2.1 vs 1.3), for some reason. Note that the amount of cooler/heater is close (cooler : 26 vs 23 heaters). I use a geyser for to help for the temperature though.



Conclusion :
Cold biomes are clearly harder than hot one. In fact, arid shrubland is barely harder than a temperate biome, perhaps even easier, while desert is certainly not harder than tundra, perhaps even boreal forest.
I think the biggest issue lies with clothing. It needs to be much closer in term of balance. Allow leather tuque, remove the work penalty on parka, and add a social impact on tuque. That would greatly close the gap.
Also, having crops dying when it's too hot would be a "good" thing. In real life, they die when it's too hot. Not because of the temperature itself, but due to the lack of water. Just try to grow something in a patch of gravel of a desert. Not going to work. In Rimworld ? No problem.
Finally, let the trees, especially cold species, grow when it's cold.

I went to play on a -9°c average boreal forest, with caves. For the novelty and all that.
As it happened, at some point the hives died (cold ?), which somehow pushed the entire map worth of insects to attack my 3 people settlements, barely 1 day into fall of the first year. Needless to say, they spent days of heavy fighting, not without much damage done in return (they also attack your structure like raiders).
While injuries pilled in, a manhunter pack attacked, sealing the fate of this colony.
On top of that, all the mushrooms died without even being ready for harvest at any point, due to cold.

So yes, caves are extremely dangerous for cold biome, without even offering anything in return. I don't know if it's specific to them, or any biomes and the hives just died off eventually. But quite frankly I'll never play them again in this state.

Thanks a lot, the "warehouse manager 2017" part of the game is really annoying. This mod greatly alleviate it, I can barely play without.

I'll give it a try. My colony, not as big as some I did, but I was not lucky on the prisoners/refugees roll.
Also, take care of Queen Bee, she is my 14years old Husky, with a permanent bed inside the infirmary. Poor girl has dementia and did a heart attack already.

I give Ludeon Studio permission to use this save any way they want, including using it in a video.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/i23y7wec01u3f1x/Kadesh%20Outpost%20promo.rws

A18 : Scythernado.

Caravans are totally worth it in A18. From caravans I have obtained an orbital bombardment device, Orbital power beam device, 2 rez serums, an infinite chemfuel reactor, and at least one colonist. Plus enough brick and such from deconstruction and stealing chunks that I haven't had to turn my map into a barren wasteland to pave over the dirt. I also positioned myself about a day away from a modern colony. That means I can drag my extra junk over there, sell it, and make enough scratch to summon the trade caravans I need to buy what I need to complete stuff.

That's entirely random. It was valuable FOR YOU. Not for me for example.
From my caravan, I had a 500energy infinite generator, which is poor, especially when I had 3-4 geothermal stuff already. And a thingie that produce chemfuel on its own. Which value is disputable, but since I play on a boreal forest (read wood), that's not helpful at all, unless I want to turn my base in a chemfuel based bomb.


And that's it. Note that my colony is completely self sufficient, it's been year, and I'm at the part when there is nothing to do.

Quite frankly, a legless colonist is useless, unless he does have really, really good stats. Or prostophile and you just happen to have tons of bionic leg with nothing to do with it (doubtful). And that's a colonist who wander into your home to be recruited. For someone you have to go to, takings days and resources ? Yeah, no.

And from what I heard, they are from the usual pool of colonist, so their stats are most likely crap. On top of being legless. But I can't wait to see the legless sheriff screenshot as "worst colonist ever" on reddit.

About the banishing colonist feature. I like that sending him/her butt naked will yield more negative thought than sending him/her away with clothing. But so far, it's -3for sending him away with clothes (more clothing and weapons doesn't change that), and -5 for sending him/her to die (essentially). So, basically, the colonists care more about banishing someone than letting someone else die.

Maybe swap the penalty, or make it higher for sending them to die ?

Also, can we have a "humane" way to deal with useless sheriff colonists, like the ability to send them to another colony ?

Also, something else, I had tons of caravan requests and whatnot right at the start of the game. Like literally day 2. Now that I'm established, and my food is more than the initial survival meal, I barely have any caravan requests, if at all.
Essentially, I had request I couldn't hope to accomplish when I struggled to do anything, but now that I start to get bored because my colonist are idle, and everything is done in the colony, I don't have them.

I dunno that I agree w/ Daguest's comments. It just seems to me that it makes it more important to choose your crop choices based on your biome than previously.

As the growth times were, as I recall, increased by a percentage, then the already fast-growing plants were affected least, and the longer growing plants, like corn, were affected more. Of course, it does lead to the weird circumstance where rice is a good crop for colder climates, when it's usually associated with warmer, moister climates; On the flip side, Korea is f-ing freezing (at least when I was there, during the rice-drying season), and rice is a major staple, so maybe it does make sense.

Anyway, even with A16 values, corn is the least efficient (in terms of nutrition/day, assuming the values on the wiki are current) crop, though obviously this doesn't take into account things like the time spent sowing the fields, which is a factor; But given reasonably quick farmers, potatoes and rice are superior crops, and are even moreso in climates with short growth windows.

It makes the growing season in "harsh" biome irrelevant, because you can't grow anything in this period, and they will die afterwards.
I planted potatoes and corn. Potatoes were barely at 30-40% when cold happened. It made planting without greenhouse irrelevant entirely on non temperate biomes.

I don't like the change to the plant growth time much. I tend to play on "medium" difficulty areas, like boreal forest, and it basically make them needlessly hard. Before A17, I could have 1batch of food from potatoes before the end of the growing season, while corn was usually almost ready but needed a greenhouse to complete, if I planted as soon as I was in the game. But now it's impossible. Leading to the map being as hard as tundra used to be, or even more, because you have to survive with the plants and animals in the area while you rush the construction of a greenhouse, despite having grow time.
Using rice this time didn't work much faster either.

This is exacerbated by the poor temperature all year long, which make growing slower already.


I feel it's an artificial difficulty increase for a beginning which is already rather difficult, and a not noticeable change for once you have the greenhouse going. Also, it makes the difference between crops even less important. Ironically, the corn I planted at the same time than the potatoes have been collected, while the potatoes haven't (they were outside the greenhouse, and left to die, never been collected).


TL:DR : the change in plant growth time makes the small growing season useless and equal to none for already harsh biomes like boreal forest. It's not enough, and you need a greenhouse from the start anyway.

Negative traits are exactly that.

Negative. I like it that way. Adds some variety even if it is annoying.
But I think pyromaniac for instance should be able to use flame weapons more effectively.

I have nothing against negative trait. But some of them tends to lead to ridiculous situation that are not anywhere close to reality, or plausible. Like the pyromaniac igniting fire while 5 persons are around extinguishing them as fast as he can make them. The 30+ year old chemical fascinated pawn who will basically die of OD/Luci addiction in less than a month, despite surviving a least a few years with his issue.
Then you have the whole unrealistic breaks, which was discussed over and over, like people going berserk fairly regularly, or going into mental break because they ate without table. Or funnier, becoming dazed/locked in room because they didn't reach food in time. Leading to the absurd situation of the pawn dazed in your foodstore, because he was hungry.

And on top of that, you have the extreme trait. Especially when stacked. Pessimistic+too smart for example. Or the good old convent child + sherif, usually with a very low art, so basically, they are good for nothing. And once in a while you have the Glitterworld surgeon+vat soldier, which is incapable of medicine, despite being a surgeon.

Or the frail+bad back (they can barely move with a parka), who will be downed by smoking a joint. I heard pawn with brain damage can die from a joint to (consciousness below 0).
And I didn't even start on the "incapable of hauling" who will still haul for whatever job he is doing.

As you can see, numerous examples of the absurd. They are common in the game nowadays, and while they are funny, they are not plausible in any way. So, not only they are ridiculous, but from a gameplay point of vue, they are an issue best avoided. So, why the player would use them ? They have no incentive by themselves. Why not discard them, usually in another absurd way (punching a bear naked, going in a caravan alone without food,...) ?