Messages

This game is by far one of the most fun games Ive played. Im a huge fan of the game. But you... Why do you want to spread your negativity to this page? If YOU think the game lacks stuff then thats FINE! Delete the game and go play outside. You just. You just negligent.

Lets not be negative. The game is in early access and some of these suggestions are pretty good. The only thing I would like to suggest to the OP is that these ideas belong in the suggestions section where they can help the game to evolve and grow.

Again, there is no unwinnable situation in Rimworld. If you lose all your colonists, wait a couple of minutes, someone will join the colony. If your colonists are driven to cannibalism as a result of a lack of food, then the game-as-story-generator is working as intended. Not every colony will be successful. Most won't.

You just defined the lose condition . . . even in the three castaways scenario you have a goal to help them survive and perhaps leave the planet. If they all die you lost. The game should NEVER give you another colonist; when the last original pawn dies your game should end.

If I'm playing the lone explorer scenario I may be doing just fine . . . but if my lone explorer dies that also counts as a LOSS to me and I'll quit the game. I don't care if he recruited twenty other people and they are doing fine . . . his story just ended and that was the scenario.

If I'm playing a lost tribe I need to keep that tribe alive and help it grow . . . perhaps all of the originals can die but SOMEONE needs to survive that was actually inducted into the tribe by someone else who was able to maintain that continuous line of one culture trying to rebuild, expand, and grow strong enough to defeat the blood machines from the sky.

What counts as a loss depends on the scenario and a BIG problem with the story tellers currently is that we can't let them know what the end goal is supposed to be. For me fleeing the planet in a hand built rocket ship is usually a LOSS . . . my explorer failed to conquer the planet, my lost tribe failed to be strong enough to survive there, etc . . . It's the worst part of the game right now.  We need to be able to add victory conditions to the scenario editor so it knows when we we've won or lost.

If you just repeatedly kill of everyone and restart with a new recruit or two that inherits everyone else' hard work then what was the point? How is that a story? Let alone fun? If I played like that and didn't care about my pawns things would get really easy and dull fast. There just would be no point to playing.

I totally agree . . . I keep feeling like I'm being forced into the crash landing scenario. They even still have the "build a ship to escape" sitting there as a "win" condition. Wait a second . . .

If I'm a rich explorer don't I already have my ship in orbit? Plus a ton of money that I could use to buy passage out if I so desire? Maybe I would like to be able to RECRUIT people into my thriving colony. But perhaps not!  Don't EVER just give me a wanderer as if I have no choice. Also what is MY win condition? It certainly isn't escaping the bloody planet.

Survive X number of years?
Found a thriving colony with X wealth level and Y number of people would work too.
Found a thriving colony and maintain X happiness and safety levels for Y number of years.

All of those could be fun. I actually feel like each of the new official scenarios needs it's OWN set of story tellers.

The ones we have are obviously based entirely around telling the castaway story. They even do a pretty good job of following the plot of the classic novel "Swiss Family Robinson" where a family winds up ship wrecked and has to survive and thrive until they can get rescued.  That's one of my favorite books but it doesn't work for any of the other scenarios.

I like this idea

Good discussion to have. Thanks for bringing this up.

It is a tough balance problem to solve. I think the best, most obvious solution is to put players on the offensive more often. I tried to do that with sieges and the ship part, but I think it's not quite panning out that way with sieges. So maybe I could rework sieges and make them a bit more common, and perhaps add another kind of threat or opportunity that draws people out of their base. Anyone have any thoughts about what this could be?

For me space ship parts won't draw me. I'm a "lone explorer" or "Lost tribe" type and fleeing the planet in a space ship feels like LOSING to me. I didn't crash land. I'm here to get conquer the worlds challenges, or perhaps to build up a colony strong enough to repel the demon machines from the sky when they show up again.  Leaving isn't an option.

So what would make me feel that building out in the open was a great idea?

• Mood benefits for being able to walk safely out in the open air
• Better defenses . . . upgraded turrets, fences to slow down enemies without using steel, etc . . . 
• Some idea of which direction enemies are coming from based on the location of their bases so I can set my base in a spot where distance and terrain give me advantages outside.
• Mood benefits and friendship building for allowing visitors peacefully into my base and letting them hang around with my people in a "village" perhaps even becoming friendly with the surrounding factions over time and even getting treaties with them.
• The ability to set up trading post zones and get repeated traders but they need an open path to the trade area.
• Story Tellers who I know aren't purposefully trying to push me off the planet . . . I don't want to leave. As I said leaving is LOSING.

Over all setting up a successful colony shouldn't be easy . . . but I don't want to tell the same crash landed story over and over again. The standard Rimworld game plays out like the classic book "Swiss Family Robinson".  It's great for the crash landed scenario . . . but for anything else you are hitting your head against a wall.

I'd like to tell stories about internal factions within the colony. Politics. Trade. Exploration. Building. Eventually I'd like to transition from building an initial base for "defense" over to building parks, gardens, fountains, huge plantations . . . Trade agreements with other colonies and with the stars. It might be fun to set up an Inn or Hotel and to see my colony grow a bit larger than ten or twelve people.

I'm not saying I should get there right away . . . but that's what a "win" looks like to me, and the more secure and well defended I get the more likely I'm going to say "Staying in this cave/fortress" is boring . . . lets try something else.

Hope that makes sense. I do build outside fairly often but even then my colony feels like a fortress more than anything else and I tend to rush towards getting stone working early on if I'm going to be building outside.

I also like this idea. It might be tricky to balance those emergent effects but that is why we are in alpha! lol

I like Taga's idea too. It would be nice to be able to persuade people to join, rather than always throw them in jail and coerce them into joining.

Always this!

In fact I'd go as far as saying that it should be MUCH easier to recruit a guest compared to a prisoner. Think about it . . . I'm your enemy. You just killed my friends and locked me up. Perhaps you stripped me and stole my stuff. How likely am I to join you?

Point blank it's simply not going to happen. At best if you treat me well we might become friends. That has benefits. You show yourself to be honorable and our faction's relationship improves a bit. However if you kept me in an ugly cramped cell, failed to feed me, stole my clothes, etc . . . I might just carry a grudge.

Players shouldn't be taking prisoners just to recruit them. If my colony is poor and hungry maybe I should leave them outside to die. Perhaps I take them for some other reason. I could harvest their organs, sell them to slavers, or even hold them for ransom.

Being altruistic though could get you a lot of benefits simply by eventually having the attacks stop and replacing those events with visitors, traders, even people from that faction coming and asking to join up. But it's a long term "reward" in exchange for a lot of food, medicine, and effort.

On the other side of the same question . . . I'm in trouble and you just rescued me. You treat me like a guest. You tend to my wounds. You feed me. We talk and become friends. Suddenly it makes perfect sense that I might be recruited and join your settlement. This is especially true if I just crash landed and have nowhere else to go anyway. 

My other relationships on this planet might also play into things. If I have a brother and other family in a nearby settlement I'm likely to join them. If I have a wife and kids I'm unlikely to leave them behind . . . but perhaps you have a chance to recruit my family. Especially if your base is wealthier, prettier, or more comfortable than what we have back home.

The current system just makes no sense.

Yes and . . . could we also have a bit of thought in the social mapping?

I had a game a few days ago where a father, his son, and a girl land on the planet. The girl and the son immediately got together and I made them a big bed . . . throughout the game "dad" kept trying to start a romance with his son's girlfriend and getting rejected for repeated negatives. It's not like the relationship was "hidden" the three of them were sharing a room and the lovers shared a bed!

On the one hand I kept thinking "Dad" is a Jackass and deserves to die . . . on the other I was screwed. If she broke up with her lover for his father that's a huge negative, if she keeps rejecting "Dad" that's a growing negative. If I kill "Dad" that's a huge negative. WTF?

In another colony I had one pretty girl and two guys. One of them was a night owl and had almost no overlap in his schedule with the other two.

Somehow the girl accepted a romance with him and created negatives in both of them because they wanted to sleep together which messed up all the scheduling and built up complimentary skills.  It wasn't a BIG negative so I let them be miserable . . . and yet they never broke up.  There is a huge difference between best friends and lovers, versus some guy you went on a date with ONCE game!

For that matter two stressed colonists should be able to "break down" and have sexual relations in an open bed during recreation time . . . without starting a romance! Give me some depth here, and some progression: Boyfriend, going steady, lovers, marriage . . . whatever! lol

From what I've come to understand the current state of the game is a bit of a hack. Things like the direction and distance of other bases don't even effect the game world.

In short the "map" is just a list of potential places laid out on a pretty menu and only one of them generates. Somewhere else there is a list of factions with their different people . . . but none of it is "real" . . . there are no other mountains, oceans, or other tribes.

They are faked by showing you a map and having random people show up on whatever border the game decides is "proper" whenever the game wants to pull them from the list.

What you are asking for would require an actual world map, with each sector being generated, saved, and edited . . . probably a complete rework of the behind the scenes code.

I like this idea.

I also agree, this is a great idea.

Regardless I vote that this sort of thing should be in the game. I'm always amused when people are making suggestions to improve an alpha or beta game and someone says "there is a mod for that" . . .

Perhaps it's my autism but just because there is a mod to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing to have it added as part of the main game. Especially if we are acting as alpha/beta testers and reviewers.

I also totally agree with this. I've been avoiding mountainous/hilly starts thinking this was already in the game and thus would be too easy. But it certainly should be there!

To be fair, most of the times that I've seen people go crazy after a battle, it was because some of the raiders that just got killed were their friends.

I think something as to be done about this too. I don't care what faction I've joined if we are going off to raid some random village and I see my WIFE there, or my SON . . . I'm not going to just gun them down. I may actually gun down my friends if they try to touch either of them. Loyalty to my family is going to out weigh any loyalty I've gained to the people who took me in.

Sure, if possible, I'm going to transform this "raid" into a friendly meeting. Perhaps I'm going to try to take my wife/son home with me; or maybe i'll stay with them. I'm certainly not going to just say "Hmmm . . . there is my WIFE . . . think I'll just shoot her."

Of course if it was an ex girlfriend or someone I hold a grudge against I'd react entirely differently. Shooting your ex-wife might even give you a nice boost to morale so long as your son isn't there too. lol

If it's just a buddy you might want to roll the dice for. Some of my best friends . . . they might as well be family.

I just realized starting a new game as a lone explorer . . . I have med kits with me but at the moment I have no way to treat myself after getting attacked by a mad squirrel. Thankfully the damage isn't that great and my character will probably pull through without medical attention but . . . this actually seems like a BUG.

Why give me medical kits if I can't use them on myself? I'm a lone explorer. Sure later on if/when I get another guy they will be useful but I'm fairly sure I brought them along in case I got hurt on my expedition.