Messages

Your negativity and constant putting down others doesn't make a good case either, you can disagree without dropping hints or going verbose about it.

Information glut isn't so much a failure as a missed opportunity.  Nothing breaks when there is too much information.  Testers don't get confused and cry for help.  In fact, the game hums along too smoothly because they understand everything.  That's why often, the hardest part about tackling information glut is realizing that it's happening in the first place.

Bonus points for identifying the game designer and the source ...

snap!

On one hand, this would take a lot of work to fit in with the game. Being unable to see past your line of sight would could be annoying, or downright bad, as we won�t know which place raiders will come, where that sieging party is, we won�t be able to spot new herds of animals coming by(and that could prove fatal during the winter months), and finding where the cargo pods or space refugees crashed, or being unable to find that hoard of alphabeavers could be very annoying. Searching for ancient ship parts, missing a battle between raiders and visiting townsmen(or a battle between insane animals and visitors. Or a bunch of raiders going mad and killing each other. Or.. well, you get my point.) Besides, it would also pretty much turn the mortar into a useless lump of metal.

Hey Allen, those are some cool possibilities there, we already know what stories we can have without FoW, but if we take a moment, like you did, to consider all the potential FoW has, then we can actually see and ponder if we are missing something cool or not.

Some of the concerns you showed could be easily dealt with with explanations yourself gave, like matching firing range and LoS or message prompts about the general area of an event (such as a siege), something as simple as a "stirred flock of birds from the east" could instigate you to investigate or not. A lot of the other concerns some people could actually consider a feature of FoW, like an added challenge such as an extra challenge in finding food and shelter in a hostile environment (like ice biome).  This game is, after all, tied with the survival genre.

+1

Welcome to the slot-wagon my friend!

I feel the game could have some sort of counter-engineering or tech stealing/mimicking mechanic. So, while it should be impossible or a daunting task to a single doctor to produce a vaccine (i'm assuming it is, don't really know) then at least you could duplicate it in some sort of replicator station or some kind of lab.

+1 to vaccines btw

I'm still trying to figure out if the bonus should be small or big, and i'm taking suggestions.

Should, for example, should a doctor operating in a 
a) bare med-bay (no scans, tools, etc) be made at a penalty, and said equipment negates the penalty (and extra apparatus giving actual bonuses)  or
b) the doctor always operates at full capability and apparatus only give bonuses?

I figure that there should be a way to prevent equipment overcrowd. So i think each equipment after the first or second should give progressively inferior bonuses. Also, if they are to be impacting they should come with a heavy investment, in price, time or energy. So it is possible to have a glitterworld med-bay with huge bonuses (i don't see a problem with that, if you invested heavily into it), but said bonuses comes with a hefty cost.

I won't go into more details because everyone (including myself) are starting to repeat themselves, and in a discussion that is this opinion-dependent (there is no right or wrong really), everyone will just heavily weight their "facts" to fit each agenda. Although i do weight in contrary opinions, most are based on personal bias, so i'm much more interested in someone with a neutral standpoint, for example.

That said, most nay sayers have some arguments that feel more like fear than actual concerns, saying that fog of war will turn rimworld into a mindless rts is about the same as if rimworld had already fog of war and people wanted it out, then contrary people argue that no fog of war would turn rimworld into a bureaucratic sim-city-esque building game. The former and the latter are simply not true, fow doesn't define a genre.

In part I also feel that people are afraid to lose control -unable to see what and how hostile the world really is- in order to have that "perfect-game" which i consider a syndrome. So it's understandable that most people would dislike FoW because there's the possibility you lose your favorite pawn for a stealthy sniper or because you failed to detect an invasion, but that's not the mechanic's fault it's the incapability of accepting loss.

Everyone could go back and forth ad nauseam, undermining the "opposition's" arguments to elate their own, or, like some people like to do, to personally attack the person instead of the argument. I find it, at least after some time, this to be a negative way of conducting a discussion, so instead of seeing how bad other's position are, i propose that people explain and provide examples on how good their viewings are, so everyone view as a whole which would be better to build stories, thus the game. Perhaps there's even a good compromise from that.

I'm much more appalled by the kind of bashing something as natural as sex receives, while things that should be taken with a grain, such as violence, cannibalism, torture and gunning people down, is green-lighted without even a nod. The only difference is that you can exploit sex for some kind of appealing, which is something no-one here is doing, nobody wants graphically depicted sex scenes or moans.

If you are concerned about asexuals, denying that sex exists or trying to cover with euphemism is not the way to go, try for acceptance and diversity portrayal: if we have relationships in game, i want there to be heterosexuals, asexual, homosexuals, bisexuals or whatever people want their preferences to be, as long as its in the realm of (contemporary) ethics.

If people have a problem with diversity then i'd say there will be plenty of prejudice mods.

I would like to recall a bit from Tynan : With a fog of war you cannot see elements of storytelling like a raider attacked by fauna or becoming broken.

TBH that's only half true, with FoW you're only delaying that until you develop ways to counter it. Also, right now, there's nothing much in events and behavior that won't lose its novelty after a few invasions.

I also support that FoW would not change the Killbox problem in any way. Killbox work precisely because AI are extremely predictable. And I'll go on saying that if we had FoW, not being able to count on that anymore could make raider/tribal quite frustrating (and again, I don't want to need guard outside of those clear event)

Losing sense of control is a poignant consequence of FoW indeed (and a feature), but lets remember that should it be implemented everything else would rebalance around it.

For example, it could be a longer time before the raiding begins, you could even postpone it should you continue to remain hidden (or kill scouts), or there could be something like constant threats besides only invasions.

Although its quite fun to build and amass wealth, i think the overall theme of the game is to be under pressure until you manage to escape, and the challenges of managing your survivors until then. I mean, its not an efficiency simulator like sim city or a traditional war rts.
FoW provides more tension while omniscience removes it, but even with FoW you can have a happy-go-lucky rim time with a different AI director and/or challenge rating.

Rimworld will still be rimworld with or without FoW, in the end its about how many people will voice their preferences higher.

It's like eye candy but with benefits!

+1

Let's not forget that you can apply uncertainty veil in varying degrees. You can have the strict, binary way used in most RTS games. Or something more like in Total Annihilation, where you can still detect things with a radar and see them on minimap. In Rimworld terms, this could mean that a radar would let you see where enemies are (represented as red dots), but you wouldn't know how they're equipped, their names, stats. Until you get close enough to see them. Such radars or sensors could be quite cheap, but run on electric energy so they would only cover the area near your base. Unless you make a point of building a solar generator and a sensor somewhere far away just for early warning.

Yep, there's a ton of creative ways to deal with fow. Red blips are pretty cool, kinda like aliens, and they could be just a herd of animals.

I think early game should be scarier, and fog is a good way to deliver that. Unless people want to trivialize the theme of the game, then it doesn't ever matter if they are shipwrecked or just a small band of colonists pioneers.

The kind of tactical choices the player has to make, such as "do i research better sensors or better ways to farm?" are the stuff that makes the game richer IMHO, and fow promotes that.

That's so simple and obvious yet i don't think i've ever seen it suggested.

Definitely a +1

So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.  Kill boxes are a result of raider AI that is incapable of handling a kill box. A darkness based fog of war is not going to encourage kill boxes any more than they already are.  FoW would open up the opportunity for new types of interactions between existing game mechanics which can lead to emergent behaviour and hence more interesting stories.  There is obviously a place in this world for both perfect and imperfect knowledge games, but for creating stories imperfect knowledge is far superior.

As for tipping towards RTS, I don't see why you think this.  Fog of War is a staple in TBS, RPGs, FPS, and card games.  It is not unique to RTS and there are certainly plenty examples of RTSs that do not have fog of war. 

Yep, and the fact that Fog of War has its origin as a military term and not from a RTs game, tells a lot about its "uniqueness" to RTS. It goes well beyond its iconic graphical implementation of a covering black or dark veil as it came to be known in strategic and tactical games.

Adding fog of war would influence rimworld into changing it's genre as much as revealing all enemies and items would in a FPS game, changing into something else other than a FPS. It wouldn't.

What about using the upcoming joy/fun system to handle such personal pursues?

Or perhaps it starts as an event where it prompts a yes/no/later option. If you say yes then the pawn is free to do his thing (could be anything really, event going off map to explore).

Either by using their personal time (joy) or an event prompt (choice) the player doesn't feel cheated in feeling out of control.

I just wouldnt advertise as a straight feature out of dw but as a way to get unique items or resources.

+1 for water
+1 for a simple yet somewhat challenging water system
+1 for canteens lasting about a day, avoiding micromanagement beyond base design and colony choices.

Water could be needed for cooking or just some of the cooking dishes, it could then be haul-able and storable or the cooking station be directly connected to a water source, like an aquifer pump. 

Could be used for irrigation, replacing the fertilizer pump, improving growing speed or yield.

Could be used to aid in firefighting, such as hoses or sprinklers.

Hygiene and joy activities requiring water (shower, jacuzzi, etc).

This is ok, if this is Tynan will, this is his game.
This way, however, is almost denied the opportunity to create new races because the game lacks the basics for an easy/managable creation, addition and use of races. That's what I am concerned about the most.
There would already be playable races mods out there otherwise... (Or I did not find em? This could also be ^_^")

I am, also, suggesting the addition of the basics for new races and their modding, not just new races.

(Example of basics: Tynan, or someone who helps him, could spend 1 day editing the Rimworld Wiki and the Modding section with a detailed page like "How to create and add a new playable race from 0" or something like that. This would help Modders a lot!)

Oh don't get me wrong, i'm just echoing the standard response to race request... But i'd love to see more races in the game. I understand what you are saying, vanilla could give at least support to race creating even if not using for itself, so +1 totally support you. I'm just not sure of our odds :s