Messages

b0rsuk,

I like the idea. Well thought out. I'm particularly in favor of anything that makes killboxes obsolete as more interesting forms of challenge are presented to the colonists. Kudos to you.

Cheers,
Michael

Hello,

I would like to see the "Gear" tab altered to a more RPG look, with slots.

Head: Helmets/Hats
Shoulders: Cloaks/Shoulder pads; specifically shoulder mounted items.
Arms: Bracers
Hands: Gloves
Chest: Breast Plate
Legs: Greaves
Feet: Boots

Ranged Weapon Slot: Gun/Bow
Melee Weapon Slot: Pneumatic Pick/Sword
Shield Slot: Bubble Shield/Riot Shield/PLEADS
Accessory Slot?: Toolbelt?

Weapons are categorized as either one handed or two handed, and light or heavy. A heavy ranged weapon would be things like rpgs, bazookas, and miniguns; they are the only weapons where they can't be equipped with a melee weapon, and keep current weapon behavior.  A gun and a melee weapon can be equipped at the same time.
-One handed gun, one handed melee: can be used at the same time (space marine style)
-one handed gun, two handed melee: when engaged in melee, the gun will be holstered and the melee weapon drawn
-Two handed gun, one handed melee: When engaged in melee, the gun is holstered and the melee weapon drawn
-two handed gun, two handed melee: when engaged in mele, the gun is dropped and the melee weapon drawn.


In regards to clothing and armor, they can take up more than one slot, but can also be overlapped. As an example: A jumpsuit would cover everything except the head, hands, and shoulder, but you could wear power armor over it.

Two types of shields:

-Conventional shields are like riot shields, kite shields, and gungan-style energy shields. Conventional shields act as mobile cover with a chance to turn a hit into a miss depending on the size of the shield. Each shield could have a damage threshold that would allow things like high powered rifles to nullify the m

-Then there is the "bubble" shield. These shields work on a 'charge', meaning that each hit removes a charge that regenerates over time. It would be based off kinetic force, as in, it requires a certain amount of force to be applied to the shield in order for it to block entry/exit. Melee attacks and primitive ranged weapons could pass both ways through the shield.

-A final type of shield could be a "PLEADS", Personal Laser Energy Advanced Defence System. I named it myself! It is based on the Navy's LaWS. Basically, this is like a body mounted laser that tracks incomming projectiles and shoots a laser at it, either cancelling out another form of energy or vaporizing a conventional projectile. This would require a battery, that once depleted would have to be recharged or simply a new put in.

Cheers,
Michael

Vagabond, what would adding ammo accomplish besides increasing micromanagement ? Look, people are up in arms against clothing deterioration. I imagine ammo would run out much faster than that.

Think I pretty clearly stated the benefits here:

You would craft these, and they'd have large stacks. You could stock them in resupply caches near engagement zones. Enemies will have these same restrictions; if they come to your base to siege, they will bring extra ammo cans with them, it would take a certain amount of time for them to get more based on how far their base is. If they come to "raid", they leave when they all run out of ammo, but will resupply using your stock if they can safely path to it.

I'm not saying that it should be implemented. I was just throwing another idea into the pot for the purpose of adding to the topic. Besides, it's just more of what we already do. More crafting. More stocking. At least it offers concrete benefits, and it doesn't really have to be something that a colonist has to be there to make, at least not after more "advanced" methods are unlocked (for example: a machine with a hopper that once loaded, pops out ammo over of a certain type automatically.).

I don't know if it is just me, but I find it rather frustrating when the arguments against an idea boils down to "Won't work", "to much work", "it'll be a disaster!", or "This has been mentioned before". Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with someone disagreeing with mine or anyone elses idea, but what happened to constructive criticism?

"THIS is why I don't think the idea work"
"I don't know if that will work, but maybe this might work"
"What if you changed A to B, added C, and removed D?"

Like I said though, I'm not particularly attached to the idea, It was just written as something to contemplate, to perhaps jog other people's creativity. Not sure if it'd work or not on it's own, but It doesn't sound so bad if it were fleshed out in a balanced manner.

As for:

As for cover, first of all I'd like to see any cover/field of view indication. Who benefits from cover, which targets are obscured for this character. Do sandbags surrounding a turret mess up its accuracy ? Do they shield it from fire ? Does a bush grant cover ? Less or more than a tree ?

I could see like...firing 'cones' when you select a pawn or object that fires. The length and width of the cone would show you where and how far they could fire. They could interact with objects so that the cone's path will "break" when it hits a solid object. In the same situation of a combative unit/object being selected, any enemy units can have a specific highlight color.

Ie: a green to red spectrum in which the brighter the green, the easier they are to hit. Then you'd have yellows/oranges and then finally reds which would be the lowest chance of hitting.

These points from my last post are ones I do stand behind:
-Cover should make it incredibly hard to be hit; obviously influenced by how 'good' the cover is.
-Pawns should elect to fire at another enemy if there is an ally in the line of fire; or not shoot at all.
-Enemies moving towards a pawn should be easier to hit
-pawns moving laterally, in relation to an attacking enemy, should be harder to hit.
-Generally improving the accuracy of attacks against pawns not in cover.

Cheers,
Michael

Hello,

I remember making a suggestion like this in the past.

At any rate, I think I like the idea of needing person of X skill to help the researcher invent the new technology/object/ect. Maybe even multiple persons of X skill/multiples of researchers. Maybe resource requirements could fit in there.

Also since these aren't *new* inventions, but figuring out how to make known inventions, it makes sense that the course of research would be more predictable than the first time.

^ This. Research in 4X games and what have you revolves around inventing *new* things, whereas in Rimworld all these things are already known and you just need to figure out how to make them. If you are stranded on an island and want to make a camp fire you figure out how to make a campfire. You don't conduct exploratory research into the general concept of "heat generation" only to find you now know how to build radiators.

Main thing I have against this is that it assumes that just because we have a colonist with a glitter world background, that they know a damn thing about anything. Perhaps instead of research, there are simply colony skill level requirements to build/make things. In order to build item X, you need to have a colonist with X skill at 9 and X skill at 18.

Or maybe something else? Your colonies technology level is determined by colonists backgrounds, starting skills, ect. You raise technology level through research, but there are still skill requirements that lead to multiple colonist required for different parts of a task...

Not sure. I seriously think that researching needs to be more involved.

Cheers,
Michael

Hrm. On the fence about this one, personally. As it stands, we have ways of building power conduits on top of walls. It's useful, and convienent. However, I'm wondering if it is beneficial or detrimental. On one hand, it makes it easier to upgrade sections of your base, without losing materials due to deconstruction. On the other hand, it removes one of the ways we can exercise colony planning.

I can't decide which I'd like more. Maybe make it a togglable option? I know some people are against having to many things as options, but I really think it is nice, and what is the harm in offering alternate ways to play the game? Keeps you from having to stick a mod on top of your game to do it.

Cheers,
Michael

I understand the story of and setting that rimworld takes place in.  I also understand the end state of the game is the escape from their status as cast aways in a world the survivors don't want to be on.

However i see great potential for a game mode where the setting is the same but the situation and end game are different.

What if the accidental castaways are intentional colonists?

The goal would be to create a sustainable colony for a scheduled influx of colonists.  The tasks would be to increase the sustainability in the form of infrastructure, habitability, quality of life and food production.  The dangers of pirate raids and angry natives could be replaced with a very harsh environment, meteor strikes and limited life sustaining resources.

Perhaps a requirement to send valuable resources back into space instead of build a space ship and leave the world.  Just a thought, as i love the game but have no desire to let my colonists escape, ever, for any reason.

I have similar desires. However, I rather enjoy having enemy factions and the possibility for complex diplomacy. I just believe there need to be checks and balances in regards to faction and npc simulation (I.e Population) to promote realistic colony growth and development (I.e no killboxes). Killboxes, as they are called, would be more suitable to a zombie mode where the enemies have no intelligence and are practically unlimited.

It's unclear why they want to escape or where they're escaping to, though. I had this argument on the IRC about this subject, saying that this planet HAD to be their original destination in the first place, because, quite frankly, there's no realistically feasible way for a non-magical starship to arrive anywhere but its destination, or origin. Any catastrophic error that could force the crew to abandon ship would occur either at launch, or at landing: Any other situation results in being lost in space forever, as an escape vehicle carrying sufficient delta-V to safely stop and deliver the occupants anywhere else while in-flight is a starship in its own right. If you eject from your ship in deep space while flying at a statistically significant proportion of the speed of light, you're just going to fly forever until you smash into something and die, there's no way to stop. The only places you could survive ejecting from are at departure or arrival.

This is further borne out by the fact that, at the end scene, the starship is not given any actual kind of destination. The AI is left to wander around in space and hide under an asteroid for a thousand years. There is no promised land that it is set to go to. The ending seems a bit placeholder, but that is expected from an unfinished game.

What an excellent point. I agree completely.

I would like the ability to lead attacks against the pirate outposts or tribal villages.  Or the inclusion of meeting demands with the consequences of failure being a pirate raid.  I am sure there can be a way to generate npc towns on a small map and you can be the attacker.

I agree. It goes hand in hand with my ideas on complex diplomacy, off map missions, vehicles, ect.

Cheers.
Michael

Hello,

I've found combat AI quite interesting myself. I've often tossed around the idea ammunition. Instead of specific ammunition types, why not have just four types?

Projectiles: Arrows, Bolts, *javelins, ect.

*In the case of hand thrown weapons, the last one is always kept so they can melee with it if needs arise. But you can order them to "reload" if you'd prefer them to continue throwing.

Light Rounds: Basicially any conventional pistol, rifle, carbine, shotgun, browning turret.

Energy Rounds: Used for energy weapon systems

Heavy Rounds: Ammo for rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and things like mortar turrets.

You would craft these, and they'd have large stacks. You could stock them in resupply caches near engagement zones. Enemies will have these same restrictions; if they come to your base to siege, they will bring extra ammo cans with them, it would take a certain amount of time for them to get more based on how far their base is. If they come to "raid", they leave when they all run out of ammo, but will resupply using your stock if they can safely path to it.

I also think that tactical orders, similar to Dragon Age: Origins would be interesting. Being able to sell your colonist with the sniper rifle to target the farthest enemy (who is most likely a sniper themselves) would be nice. As well as having your guy with the minigun target "groups" of enemies of three or more. Your dudes with pistols could be told to attack the closest enemies.

I think cover should be way more powerful. The chance to hit someone peeking around a corner should be very high. At the same time, weapons should be way more accurate. The first time my dad took me to a shooting range (first time using a gun; he's military so he felt it important I learned) I hit the target seven out of ten times. Four of the shots were kill shots. My brother (20) and I put bows into my seven year old son's and ten year brother's hands and had them shoot. By the end of the day, they were hitting the target reliably at ten yards. I won't get into bullseyes with them, because a lot of their 'hits' didn't penetrate the target (due to their strength, and the practice points).

A target standing still, or moving towards you can be reliably hit by even people new at shooting. Though I understand the difficulty of hitting laterally moving targets. A year later, my son took a fat rabbit down at about nine yards as it fled. With a bow. Good soup.

So...there we are. I think cover should mean a lot more. Increased accuracy against open targets. Make it so characters won't fire at an enemy if a friendly is between them and the enemy. Tactical options would be nice too.

There could be tactical presets based on weapon for AI controlled pawns. . .

Cheers,
Michael

Hello,

I think there needs to be a more dynamic approach to interfaction relations. As it stands there is this... "Psychic" relationship meter that automatically determines whether or not relationship is gained or loss. Some hypothetical situations and their possible outcomes:

Faction A visits the colony. Faction B is an enemy of Faction A, and they are on map and attacks them. You pick a side and help defeat them, but there are no survivors amongst your allies. Thus there is no way for their faction to know you helped them. One of the enemy faction members survived, so you do take a relationship hit with their faction. Now, you can call up the allied faction and let them know what happened and avoid a relationship hit if the AI Storyteller decides to send a search party out. IF the other faction is technologically impaired (such as tribals), you can send a colonist to their base on an off map 'mission' to let them know what happend. In this situation you can never gain rep with Faction A, because there are no survivors (relationship gained would be determined by the amount of allies that return home, and after that, how many enemy faction members were killed.).

Cheers,
Michael

It's certainly easy to do something like allow to carry 100 items instead of 75. But with two items, you're going to come up with new algorithms. Carrying one item type at a time is complex enough, let's wait until it's taken care of, ok ? For example:

- colonists return from fields or mines with empty hands
- colonists leave food spoiling on the field
- colonist goes to haul 6 steel for a power conduit and leaves lots of steel lying in a mine
- colonist decides to haul a granite chunk to a dumping site instead of a corpse. Hauling a cowboy hat instead of an armor vest.

B0rsuk,

You make valid points, however stifling the creativity of others due to the current state of the game is a bit counter-productive. I like to think of the suggestions forum as one big disorganized poll that Tynan can draw off of.

It's my opinion that arguements against something should be based on much more than the current state of the game. It can't hurt anything, and may prove to be inspiration for something else.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree it would be nice to have a way to haul more efficiently. Not only through more efficient pathing algorithms and logic, but through portable storage devices.

Carts, Wheelburrows, wagons, pack animals, backpacks, wicker baskets, ect.

My thing is: the average weight of a potato (across all types) is around 5. (5*75)/16 = 23. So. 23 pounds of potato per stack. I could lift...four such sacks of potatoes in each hand.

Now, one could argue that it is 75 "portions" of potatoes, so that each one abstractly represented the amount needed to fulfill a task. In which case, identifying weight would be difficult.

Huuuurm. Still think making items have weight would be beneficial. Even if there were only three weights (Light, medium, and heavy). So you could carry three stacks of light, two stacks of medium, and one stack of heavy, just as an example.

Cheers,
Michael

+1 to Kegereneku and Keychain

Cheers,
Michael

Hello,

I support methods to allow more efficient hauling. Size and weight of objects might have to come into play though. . .

Cheers,
Michael

Paul Mauddib,

Vehicles, mounts/pack animals, and backpacks (and similar) have been suggested many times. I am totally in agreement with it. I play exclusively on the 400x400 map, and it's kind of painful sometimes.

As others have suggested before, these things, especially mounts/vehicles, could have further use in off map missions and such.

Cheers,
Michael

b0rsuk,

I'm pro-water management/hygiene/waste management.

I think Mathenaut is on to something, though. I think it'd be nice to have non-electricity using methods of  food preservation. Canning/Jarring. Salting/smoking. This would be one more step towards allowing me to roll a tribal-no electricty colony, and a way for my electricity colonies to pack away a bunch of food in a dark storage room type cellar for emergencies.

I do agree that the nutrient paste dispenser needs an overhaul. There should be benefits and drawbacks for things such as that. Unless you wish to argue that it's automated nature is benefit enough, which I don't agree with.

Cheers,
Michael

Hello,

Awesome suggestion, and it would surely be a good addition to the base game. Until then, why not try out the mod "Battle Stations" found here:

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=8982.0

I think you will be pleased with it.

Cheers,
Michael

Hello,

+1. Awesome idea. I thought I was wierd for spending copious amounts of time just planning when I started.

Cheers,
Michael