Messages

No. Just no. The event is fine as it is. Differing risk levels based on animal and differing levels of rewards as well. As others have said it is the last event that has a decent reward sometimes for taking the risk. You don't have to fight manhunters, they can be totally ignored. but you can take a risk and get a reward. I don't want to fight mechanoids if I can at all help it the risk v reward of confronting them is really bad. Manhunter packs sometimes I want to take the risk other raids are risk with little reward for overcoming them and I only fight them because you are forced to.

I'm with this fellow.

I really enjoy the temptation with manhunter packs.  Do I step out, try to fight them off?  If I'm successful, I can net a lot of meat and leather.  However, I'm exposing my colonists to teeth and horns, and even if you're reasonably well outfitted angry hordes of animals can do substantial damage if you're careless/overconfident/unlucky.

Actually, if it doesn't take too much work, switching the downed adaptation to permanent injury adaptation would help out legit players and simultaneously get rid of the exploit.  My 6 guys with eyes shot out and prosthetic arms aren't too great but they weren't even downed 

I've always wondered if there's an adaptation/colony wealth scoring consideration for pawn value. 

I mean, when you have your best pawns not downed or killed by just permanently injured in substantial ways, you end up with lots of pawns most of which are basically useless... but I fear pushing value up due to pawn count. 

This comes up fairly frequently for me, as it's not uncommon for particularly bloodthirsty and suicidal raiders to rush in close (particularly in the early/mid game before I've got lots of well armed and armored pawns) and do significant amounts of permanent damage.

Anyone who says Rimworld is "a completely different game" when jumping from B18 to 1.0 should be disregarded flat out. The person has no idea what they're talking about.

The vast majority of changes in 1.0 are positive. Rimworld is going in a great direction. Will it be perfect? No. Will it be excellent? Yes. 96% of recent reviews on Steam are positive, too. That's unheard of.

Stay the course, Tynan.

When all is said and done, 1.0's changes vs. B18 are pretty damn minor, particularly if you want to compare changes in, say, 15 > 16 when the world map was added (forgive me if I'm a version off; my meaning should be clear).

1.0 has a lot of balance changes, but this is fine: they are not "make everything the same" balance changes, and be wary of people complaining about the specifics of balance changes as there's a lot happening in quick iteration - complaints a couple days ago are likely irrelevant now. 

Fundamental game changes, though?  No, this is still Rimworld.  It's still the same game it was in B18 - some refreshed graphics, some balance changes and a new watermill hardly make for a new game. 

Want to play super-hardcore-ultra-difficult-race-to-win-condition?  You still can.  Want to build the perfect killboxes?  You still can.  Want to play a gentler, base building game without killboxes?  You can do that too. 

People railing on about unstable builds is just ridiculous.  And definitely, anyone saying Rimworld 1.0 is "a totally different game" deserves to be disregarded out of hand.  That's just ludicrous.

Hmmm.  Rescued a escape pod guy, healed him up, then he immediately walks right over multiple traps. 

Shouldn't friendly - blue named - pawns avoid traps?

Healed him up, then he immediately walked over the same traps again.  Healed him again, left those traps un-set, and he took a totally different path out.... through more traps and died. 

I 100% can't agree more. Biggest thing that makes it hard to accept just starting new games all the time is I spend a lot of prep time finding the correct pawns and location I want before playing. I would go a step further and give players a small reward for starting over.

I'm totally on board with such an option, but as an aside I always make a new, specially named save at the very start of a game so I can restart that specific game.

However, if Tynan wants to have permadeath (with a less intimidating name) on by default, a "restart *this* game" option would be a very good idea, as a day-one save would no longer be possible.

If so, I think that is a great change. The toxic fallout event was almost a boon rather than a hindrance with the free meat supply.

Absolutely.  I always used to look at toxic fallout as a flat out benefit because I'd instantly effortlessly get all the meat and leather on the map without risk/time hunting.  Even big gribbly creatures. 

I really love how it's the toxic buildup status effect that causes the rot, too; not just dying in the fallout, so you can't game it by rescuing downed animals then killing them.  It makes sense: their bodies are literally so full of toxins they're dying.  Obviously it won't be good meat. 

It's nice for Fallout to actually be a more dangerous event instead of just a green tinted benefit.

I'd like to see a "bottom right of the screen" toggle for Informative Tooltips.  This toggle would enable showing very detailed information in tooltips, and thus could be simply disabled to get rid of the "henceforth in your way" aspect of informative tooltips.

I also found on an Arid Shrubland play that I got a shocking large number of beaver events, but I haven't seen a single one on any other biome  in any of my 1.0 playthroughs.  My current game has seen 4 years in Temperate Forest without any beavers at all, whereas that Arid Shrubland had them multiple times per year.


Still possible it's just random, however, the Arid Shrubland part there stands out.

Interestingly, beavers is a much worse event on Arid Shrubland as there aren't many trees, and tree growing has been rebalanced to be MUCH more labour intensive.  Beaver events in a temperate forest are largely irrelevant(or even decidedly advantageous, because of the meat and leather) as there's basically unlimited trees most of the time anyways.

I definitely suspect chances are different per biome.

I only now noticed it, but oh my god.

I *absolutely* love the new "Do until you have X" restrictions.

I've always struggled to automate tailoring in particular to ensure there's always fresh clothing for my pawns, without accidentally ending up not making anything because I've tons of worn clothes, or stuff made of the wrong materials.

Now, I have jobs set up to ensure there's always 11 (I have 10 pawns) of each item of clothing, counting those that are equipped, that are also made of the correct materials AND over 60% health.  Now my pawns will just wander off and get changed if their clothes are too damaged (50% limit on outfit health), and immediately afterwards a new item will be made of whatever of the allowed materials is available.  Because of the "equipped" limit, this ensures seasonal wear is adequately available too. 

I can't begin to say how tickled pink I am with this.  Not just for clothing, of course, but that's the first use case I had.  These controls definitely make manufacturing a great deal easier.

More animal weirdness yay!

Had a toxic fallout, started madly building hydroponics since it happened right when the short boreal growing season starts.  And it was the shortest toxic fallout in history: 4 days! Go randy!

Because of the instant animal rot, this means that any predators who don't go unconscious before they go hunting now all go manhunting on your butt, since they end up killing everything because they can't eat the corpses.

Additionally, I had a grizzly bear go manhunter and when I shot it, it just ran away 

More manhunting weirdness:  A remote warg decided to go manhunter and gave the message, then almost immediately switched to hunting a raccoon.  This may have always been happening and is only noticed with the new message system.

There's a difference between "manhunter" (that is a status, where they'll continue to hunt any humanlikes until they pass out) and simply hunting humans (which they'll pop up a letter for; "[Animal] is hunting [Specific Pawn]."  If they're just hunting, then yeah shooting may work (but may also prompt revenge) but if they've actually gone "Manhunter" (the status) then they'll keep at it till downed.

it was my understanding that the animals were close to their earthly counterparts, not identical. still would be nice to know if that is correct.

Sure, but 37kg is a *lot*.  That's a fox that weighs in over 80 lbs.  I hope it gives a lot of meat and leather.  Hell, a 10kg rat is a 22lb rat.  That's a hell of a rat.



Research:

• I really enjoy the research speed being way slower.  I find it makes it worth making "mid range" equipment that I'd normally just not bother about on my rush to high end gear.
• Plate armor and long blades cost way too much.  There's too much really important early research (batteries, solar, turrets, microelectronics for the bonus research speed/benches, etc; investing the early research time in plate seems ridiculous given how comparable it'll be to research flak armor and such on your way into guns.
• Overall research gain speed is, from my perspective, pretty good.  I tend to have poor researchers only for the first part of the game as it's pretty rare to get a good researcher who doesn't otherwise gimp you in the initial set of three colonists - at least, I don't ever try for one.  I like that I'll actually make guns before Assault Rifles now whereas in the past I'd just research more then make Assault Rifles/Charge Rifles.

I've been working hard at using caravans to test how they (and quests) work in 1.0.  One weird problem I've found is how captives are treated when you arrive home.

Normally, if you (for example) make a new prison cell, and "un-prison" a prisoners current cell, a warden will come and guide the prisoner to their new cell.  This behavior works well, and looks fantastic from a player perspective.

When you arrive home with captives, however, your caravaners just leave them at the map edge (in restraints) and go about their day.  The captives then (very slowly - restraints) walk to their prison cells.  There are two problems with this.

First... Why are they walking to their cell?  Why not just leave?

Second... They trip every trap they cross, and they cross every trap between them and their cell.  I just had a slaving run Bandit Camp clearing quest arrive back at my colony, only to have all my prisoners kill themselves on my base defenses when trying to get to their cell.  This was particularly unfortunate as one of the prisoners was my main doctors' lover.

Obvious solution: Have pawns guide the prisoners to their cells, exactly as they guide a prisoner from a not-a-cell-anymore to their new cells.  Ideally, you'd have the caravanners simply guide them in when they arrive back on your colony map.

[Suggestion: Implement a per pawn toggle to prevent pawns from automatically choosing targets currently engaged in melee combat.]

Suggestion: Implement a per pawn toggle to prevent pawns from automatically choosing targets currently engaged in melee combat.

In previous versions of the game, melee has been a decidedly poor choice and something that only happens when things have already gone wrong.

That's less so the case now, and it appears at least that this is intentional.  I'm all for it, honestly, but it does make one thing a bit rougher: Friendly fire.  Is it at all possible to get a per-pawn toggle to simply not fire into melee unless specifically told to target them.  Basically, I'm looking for a way to have my pawns stop picking automatically targets in melee when their original target dies.

Too often I only catch this after someone has firing their bolt action rifle into my melee pawn's head. 

Just a simple "It's too dangerous, I can't get a good shot!" toggle, so my pawns don't default to murdering my poor melee guys who already have things pretty rough.  Obviously, this won't end FF from "I ran into the line of fire" or FF from deliberately firing into melee, but it'd go a long way to prevent accidental and wholly unnecessary injuries.

[Technically: So the AI won't choose targets that are currently engaged in melee]

In previous versions of the game, melee has been a decidedly poor choice and something that only happens when things have already gone wrong.

That's less so the case now, and it appears at least that this is intentional.  I'm all for it, honestly, but it does make one thing a bit rougher: Friendly fire.  Is it at all possible to get a per-pawn toggle to simply not fire into melee (Technically: So the AI won't choose targets that are currently engaged in melee) unless specifically told to target them.  Basically, I'm looking for a way to have my pawns stop picking automatically targets in melee when their original target dies.

Too often I only catch this after someone has firing their bolt action rifle into my melee pawn's head. 

Just a simple "It's too dangerous, I can't get a good shot!" toggle, so my pawns don't default to murdering my poor melee guys who already have things pretty rough.  Obviously, this won't end FF from "I ran into the line of fire" or FF from deliberately firing into melee, but it'd go a long way to prevent accidental and wholly unnecessary injuries.

This is exactly what I mean. I've expressed my discontent with the melee vs ranged system in the past, but I think this is the main point of contention. A melee pawn charging directly at a gun-wielding pawn who's targeting him is just too damned strong. If the player doesn't target the melee because there are too many of them, like in a tribal raid, or because they prioritize the ranged pawns, then they kind of deserve to get wrecked. But when I have 3 pawns targeting a single melee, and he still gets there mostly unscathed, that's where I draw the line. As a player, I should never consider draft-and-charge to be a viable tactic, either.

I'd be ok with this, except for the resultant situation.

For raiders, having pawns permanently injured is irrelevant: They cannot run out of pawns.  Raiders can send melee pawns in, have them get injured in every battle, and it doesn't matter because they'll have fresh pawns for the next raid.  So, raiders can use melee pawns effectively, whereas we can't.  If your melee pawn charges them, he's going to take melee damage, hostile fire, and friendly fire.  He's pretty much garaunteed to be injured, probably seriously, and as a result he's going to be scarred or crippled.  Each raid will permanently reduce his capability both as a warrior and as a useful pawn. 

Sure, there's bionics and archotech, which can actually improve a seriously mangled pawn, but that's extremely expensive end-game stuff there. 

I find, in the early to mid game, firing into a melee is insanely dangerous and basically a 50-50 chance of hitting your own pawn. 

If this where a game with health bars and no long term injuries melee vs. ranged would be way easier to balance.  But with long term injuries, how can you balance when considering how the attackers are not impacted by crippling injuries, but the defender suffers attrition in every single raid?

What I can attest these armors do is tire you the fuck out. What about if, in lieu of a speed decrease, they give you penalties to food, rest and comfort consumption?

From what I understand, the issue isn't a matter of appropriate penalties to dissuade constant armor use.

The problem is that if you have penalties on your armor, then the alternative is to only wear armor for raids.  But this is awkward and tedious micromanagement - armor on for raid, armor off again afterwards - that just makes raids more annoying. 

The solution can be "have pawns automatically suit up/remove gear after fights" but that has it's own design difficulties and is a big mess of potential problems.  There's a lot of work that would have to go into armor being actually worth wearing without involving tedious micromanagement to get the most out of it.

Similar logic applies to the parka.  It used to have a work speed penalty, and now it does not.  Sure, "realistically" parkas ARE large and bulky and annoying to work in.  However, "realistically" you'd just take your parka off when you went inside, and put it on when you went outside.  This would either (again) require tedious micromanagement or a lot more design work (where do they put their coats?  What if they're going in and out frequently? which coat is theirs? What if they need to exit by a different door?  yada, yada, yada).

It's not that these issues are not solveable, but rather that it's not really worth solving them for such trivial gain - just the "realism" of some coats/armor having some form of penalties to wear effectively because reasons.

[19 different types of leather]

I'm a reasonably long term player; started on A13's release anyways. 

I *like* a lot of the "simplification".  Not because I don't like having options - but rather because when there are too many options differentiating them is just noise. 

Look at leathers.  There's still, what, 19 different types of leather.  Each of those 19 types still has different modifiers to armor and thermal properties.  Still many different types of cloth too with all their own properties.  It used to be way more types, though, and it was ridiculous.  Oh, you want to build some pants... Sorry, you've got 30 Emu leather, 40 Turkey leather, and 40 Cassowary Leather.  No pants for you. 

Hell, if anything, I think it would have been better to go down more.  Fewer types with bigger differences.

Ultimately, though, rarely you're choosing a specific material for it's own properties, and much more just using what's readily available in quantity.  Once you're getting to a point in the late game where you can really pick and choose freely for what material you're going to use, you're almost inevitably going to go to whatever is "the best" (see: most people outfitting in Devilstrand later in the game).  But at least when I look in my store rooms now, there's roughly half as many stacks of leather because so many more types stack together. 

Parkas, power armors?  Losing the work speed penalty is fine.  There's simply no good way to automate clothing changes, and until there is, it's dumb micromanagement.  Nobody enjoys "Oh, there's a raid, everyone strap on your power armor really quick, then take it off again"; it's just a pain in the ass.  Pawns don't take off their coats when they come inside, either. 

Now those things could be changed, but it'd likely be a bunch of work for very little gain.  Just removing the penalties makes it fine to have your pawns wearing parkas throughout the winter without worrying with needless micromanagement whenever they come inside.