Messages

"Beer would dehydrate you" is one of those ridiculous myths based on a kernel of truth. ALCOHOL dehydrates you, but beer packages that alcohol with 95% water. If you're cooking up 80% proof bathtub moonshine, you get what you deserve, but brewing beer has been a highly effective and preferable way to make water safe and drinkable for almost as long as freaking agriculture has existed. The idea is that apparently, for much of the history of human civilisation, people have been dehydrating themselves with beer and were too damn stupid to ever notice that fact. Oh sure, they're smart enough to work out intricate metallurgy, build wonders of the world, and philosophize endlessly, but herp derp, only us moderns are super smart enough to realise when they're *more or less thirsty*.

The addition of a water system in the game would obviously come with a change to the brewing recipe to require water, so there'd be zero problem. For God's sake, who on Earth actually thinks Tynan would actually add a whole water and hydration system to the game and go, "Meh, beer doesn't need water to make, it's fine"?

Dehydration from alcohol is a non-issue next to the *other* effects of how much damn alcohol you're drinking to make alcohol dehydration a thing that matters. Like, "my idiot colonist has been hospitalised due to alcohol poisoning" effects. "I need to cut a new liver out of a raider to replace the one in my rampagingly alcoholic colonist" effects.

Many of us have railed on this ridiculousness before, but at this point it's obvious that it won't be changed. People paid to ruin our experience with their minefield of random, illogical incapabilities.

Your best hope is that eventually modders will manage to break into the currently untouchable parts of Rimworld the backgrounds hide in that will allow a complete overhaul of them.

Your idea is good, and has been suggested in various similar forms many times already. Lots of people would agree. Someone having a big malus to learning a job because they are disgusted by/scared of/culturally unprepared for it is perfectly reasonable. The current 'incapable' system means that someone will literally refuse to save their own life because they don't like a job. A midworld chef (all of them, every single one) is such a lazy, self absorbed sack of **** that they will literally live in a pile of gore, viscera, and bodily excretions because they feel that cleaning is beneath them. And then have a mental break because of their horrific surroundings.

I think the easiest and most immersive way to do this is for a whole raid to have a singular 'mission' which you're told when they arrive, just like with sieges.

Raiders can be there 'to steal your valuables', and then they'll do what they can to dash in and make off with the highest value stuff you've got. Or they can be there to 'collect slaves', and they'll try to incapacitate colonists and make off with them. In both these cases raiders should have a risk averse AI. If a colonist is on their own, they'll mob him/her, but if they meet large numbers of heavily armed colonists, they retreat across the map but don't leave, and try another attack elsewhere (or digging). You'd have to keep going after these a-holes until they decide things are too hot and not worth trying, or they'll just stay on the map until they get what they want.

Then you could have a 'punitive raid', a heavily armed attack in later stages of your colony that's just there because they want to hurt you (you are likely to have been, after all, quite a costly thorn in the side). They'll burn and destroy what they can, and try to kill everyone. The raid we generally have now. It's just war.

I eagerly await the inevitable bug where cleanbots somehow see people as things to be cleaned and chase them down like a horde of purifying fanatics.

CLEAN! CLEEEEEEEEEAN!

Cannibalism is in the game because this is a survival game and you can potentially be reduced to eating people in order to survive the harsh environment. It's an obvious and well-known extremity of trying to survive in terrible conditions.

Adding rape and sexual slavery to the game has nothing to do with survival, and everything to do with trying to package your kink into the game. We don't even have a dynamic water system in our game all about wilderness survival yet, but people are seriously debating the merits of adding *rape* into the game, and patting each other on the back for being so 'mature' in discussing it like 'grown ups'. Real grown ups, in person, simply glare irritably at foolishness like this until the purveyor of it wilts under the weight of their own idiocy, and then get on with something important.

Perspective. You have none. It isn't 'political correctness' that prevents discussions like these, and you're not some kind of mature, counter cultural hero for having the discussion in the face of the scary PC brigade, or SJW, or whatever ridiculous labels you're using today. It's a simple case of people knowing that "Hey, lets add rape to the game" is the sort of thing that rightfully gets you looked at like a tool by everyone else in the room in the real world, then ignored like a child. This isn't intellectual empowerment, it's degeneracy trying to couch itself in such terms, like creationism trying to wear science like some hideous skinsuit to get into the Totally Legit And Evidential Club.

This thread is like a sentence started with, "Ok, I'm not racist, but......"

[1) Why are my colonists such useless pieces of s***, incapable of doing even simple work?]

Looking around other forums,  there+s a lot of complaints about Rimworld. One of the biggest ones are:

1) Why are my colonists such useless pieces of s***, incapable of doing even simple work?
The obvious way to fix this is to fix the backgrounds so that disabling jobs is far less common. In fact, it should be extremly rare and only for background where such extreme behavior makes sense (like trauma).
Instead, levels of negatives (dislikes/hates/despises job X)
It would give different levels of mood penalty when doing that job and a learning penalty (opposite of the job passion). At the highest level it may even prevent improvement?

The problem is that, in the worst decision imaginable, many of those backgrounds are basically bought. So they can't be changed.

There wouldn't necessarily have been a problem if they had been vigorously and pragmatically vetted from the very beginning to ensure they were generic enough and interacted with the rest of the backstories well enough, but they weren't, and now there really isn't anything that can be done to change them in the vanilla game because people literally paid money to have them in the game.

And even better, the backgrounds are thoroughly buried in the game code so no-one can mod them....potentially so we can't just tear out the utter garbage these people paid to ruin the game with.

Then they die/get shot.
And these background and colonists see little to no use.

Exactly. The majority of the backgrounds are so poor, in conception and implementation, that I randomize and savescum them entirely out of my experience. They do literally nothing but make me hate the asshat who paid to add it, and waste my time keeping their 'incapable' ridden idiocy out of my experience.

Like, I don't even understand what the hell is wrong with the people who wrote half of these, no matter who wrote them, Tynan or paid inclusion. What fool thought that a military grunt would be INCAPABLE of cleaning and hauling? Do you have any idea what 97% of military grunt life is? CLEANING AND HAULING. The other 2% is being bored, 0.9% combat training, and 0.1% combat.

Or the midworld chef who is, obviously, such a lazy, worthless prima donna loser that they're INCAPABLE of hauling and cleaning. And because there's so few other chefs in the game, that basically means every single chef in the entire setting is a lazy, prima donna scumbag. I mean, it's not as if the most famous chef on the face of the entire planet is a perpetually enraged Scotsman who tears people apart if they don't have a decent work ethic.

And it goes ON like this. All actors.....entitled scumbags. All models....entitled scumbags. All ranchers....lazy scumbags. All medieval lords....entitled scumbags. All novelists.....entitled scumbags. All paramedics.....pacifists. All construction engineers....incapable of cooking even to save their own lives. All assassins.....worthless babies who can literally do nothing but kill. All minstrels.....worthless babies who can do almost nothing.

Just going to the Rimworld Wiki and scrolling down the backstories list is insane. There are 232 backstories (give or take one or two) in total between adult and childhood....only 84 of them DON'T have an incapability. Only 84 aren't merely BAD at doing something, they have something they will REFUSE to do under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, and will LITERALLY DIE if necessary to not do it.

If you want people to live more 'open', you need to overhaul the utterly terrible injury system. Every 'complaint' Tynan has about how people play this game stems from people doing everything they can to mitigate a frustrating, badly conceived, screw you RNG injury system.

He doesn't want people to create killboxes, but doesn't want to address why we're doing it.
He doesn't want to add embrasures, but doesn't want to address why we want them.
He doesn't want us to all build underground fortresses, but doesn't want to address why we're doing it.

In every single case the 'bad behaviour' of players in this regard stems directly and incredibly obviously from his design choice which people are working overtime to mitigate as much as possible. What's the most popular mod available? The one that lets you fix any injury.

There's a simple deadlock between the developer and the players here, and if Tynan wants to be stubborn and make 'his' game instead of tuning it closer to the game players want, then anyone who doesn't use a mod to tear out the guts of his 'vision' will just get annoyed/bored and leave. And in that case....why bother making the game?

I'm not Welsh, but I also demand sheep. Where is the noble walking cloud that goes baa? Where? WHERE!?

I like the idea if it's slightly retooled as a 'Call To Arms'. Colonists are all set up with specific armours and weapons they should equip when called up.

Then you just hit a button, all your colonists run to the stores, put on their gear, and stand in drafted mode in a designated gathering spot to be commanded in detail as usual. Then you hit a button once the fighting is done, and they go put all their stuff back where they got it (an equipment shelf, most likely) and put back on the gear they had before (very specifically the exact item they had before unless it has been destroyed).

Completely untrue! Actually. For a number of reasons.

I've been on the internet for too long to expect this to be good.

1. War Animals
-Taming a few expendable animals (Squirrels, Boomalopes, and Boomrats are especially good for this) explicitly for tanking raids works wonders. While I don't advise you have your production or hauling animals on the frontlines (Though Elephants are utterly terrifying war animals if you can get a few of them) if you need cheap, expendable, tasty tanks. They are utterly perfect.

So the answer to not having expendable turrets to tank damage is to replace them with expendable animals to tank damage.

It's great how you're instantly showing you're just not getting what the problem is at all.

2. Shield-Using melee
-As long as you aren't fighting a force that can instantly pop shields (Snipers, Shotguns, Heavy Charge Rifles) A shield-user with a good melee weapon can distract the bad guys long enough for a well-trained sniper squad to pick off the more dangerous enemies in a group. This tactic is especially strong against mechanoids. (Just watch out for sythers).

So your solution to removing expendable turrets to tank damage...is to use a colonist as a tank. In melee. Against mechanoids.

Ideally you do no want your shield user to actually fight, as an unlucky crit can make you lose a colonist

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGH!

3.Bunkers

Around your main gates, and in the field, you can set up fortified positions to snipe out enemies before they even get to your killbox. As long as you are wary of enemy snipers and greatbow users, it's an easy way to get many free shots off on your raiders. Remember: It takes the bad guys a long time to break through a stone door, and there isn't any limit on how many you can have in a row. Just order the doors kept open until the raid comes so you don't slow down your colonists too much.

4. Choke-points, Obstacles, Grenades

Choke-points and explosions are a very powerful combination. Using rubble and sandbags (or both!) to slow down invaders is very powerful, especially when coupled with a few choke points. Utilizing one-door "bunkers" that your defenders can use to fire from and retreat behind when melee raiders get close (or if ranged raiders draw a bead on your pawns) can make or break a defense... even without turrets.

So basically, to replace expendable turrets we can use to tank damage, you propose an ad hoc, hideously micromanaged mess of stuff that sort of replicates the embrasures and fortifications people kinda want to actually replace turrets. Which incidentally would also just entirely remove the problem of mass melee which breaks the combat system.

I don't care, we're going to pretend you grasped right from the start exactly what the problem is with the attritional numbers game Rimworld devolves into that currently requires turret spamming, or playing silly wotsits with micromanaging doors and crap enemy AI in order to sidestep the problem entirely. That way I don't have to set my monitor on fire.

Look what happens when you remove turrets AND reduce raid sizes. Your whole argument topples like a house of cards!

Oh dear God it's this guy again. I am SO sorry Jamini, everything is forgiven, I want you back, I was too harsh! 

Ok b0rsuk, I'm gonna put two quotes together for you, then you can look at them both, and try to work out the context. Just....really try.

This combat system works under VERY SPECIFIC circumstances. It creates a nice little firefight scenario when two sides both play ball and have a cool looking, small scale firefight from cover, with minor wounds and stuff. It completely falls apart when the numbers get too big, when melee exists AT ALL....

Look what happens when you remove turrets AND reduce raid sizes. Your whole argument topples like a house of cards!

You just work on that for a while. Idiot.

This is a primary point to remove turrets.  The idea that raids are too tough without them is not necessarily a reason to keep them.  how all the numbers work for the amount of raiders you get sent is necessary in current game play primarily due to turrets.  If you remove turrets raids could also be toned down and still be a threat, and in all honesty a more engaging and thought provoking threat.

Couldn't agree with the sentiments behind removing turrets, but as it stands, simply removing turrets isn't an acceptable act without giving fortifications with the other hand, and making sure that the kinds of fights that occur in the game are the kind the combat system is optimised to deal with.

To beat the horse some more, mass melee should be an easily preventable no-no because of mechanics like pinning, or a very significant change in hit probabilities that makes not being in cover suicidal, and being in hard cover a virtual impossibility of actually being directly shot because you'll just bunker down in it when taking fire. We shouldn't even need embrasures to prevent melee silliness. Enemies and colonists should not be able to close against each other in open ground so easily as they do in this game against midworld tech level sidearms. As far as Rimworld is concerned, the Battle of Rorke's Drift would have resulted in 150 dead British soldiers in under a minute, stabbed to death with contemptuous ease by 4000 dudes with spears who can run fast and lost like a dozen guys in the advance (and lots of fingers and toes). Worryingly for physicists everywhere, the Zulus did this whilst occupying an average of one square meter per dozen men.....

To be honest, I'd much rather get rid of turrets and have more 'realistic' combat in that cover is the king and not being in it will get you killed really, really quickly when you're facing off against a midworld weapon wielded by a supposed 'professional'. Combat where it's possible to pin people with incoming fire and that is how the angry guys with swords catch you and gut you, not because everyone is comedically bad at hitting big, open targets coming right at them, and randomly take out various irrelevant, non-lethal locations according to a dice roll when they do.

Buuuuut we don't have that. Instead, we need meat shields because the house always wins. We don't have a way to make the odds in ANY firefight worth risking our colonists in, because raiders are utterly expendable, colonists aren't, cover doesn't provide...uh...enough cover, and raids are really common, so even without turrets we'll engineer various probably-not-in-the-spirit-of-the-game methods to basically take our colonists out of the risk equation entirely.

The problem for me in removing turrets is that you need them to tank for you.

I'm gonna step into the line of fire and say that as it stands at the moment, the combat system pretty much sucks. It's far too horrifically luck based, so unless everyone is firing miniguns at long range, it always favours large numbers of people and high rates of fire, so you have more chances to hit. The actual effective difference between a skill 7 and skill 20 guy is such that I'll just take two skill 7 guys and put out more shots, because I've watched guys who are apparently 'planet class master' shots definitively lose a firefight with their survival rifle against a skill 1 guy with a pistol. Or just the usual hilarity of spending literally hours firing shots at unconcerned animals. This gets even worse because of how potentially resilient your enemies can be, requiring a truly stupid amount of firepower to put down, and how non-fatal wounds are meaningless to the enemy (your colonists didn't spawn just for this battle, unlike them).

Oh, and then it gets even worse because morale is nothing more than an on/off switch where the entire raid runs off after a certain amount of casualties, so they will happily run across open ground, be mostly missed by your colonists, often shrug off a lot of firepower because non-fatal wounds simply don't matter, and immediately start causing serious harm in close combat. While their friends are still shooting, with more close combatants hording up, etc.

This combat system works under VERY SPECIFIC circumstances. It creates a nice little firefight scenario when two sides both play ball and have a cool looking, small scale firefight from cover, with minor wounds and stuff. It completely falls apart when the numbers get too big, when melee exists AT ALL....you need the turrets as meat shields because you just don't have anything else to use as a meat shield and keep your colonists safe. You also need them simply for the DPS, because you still need to actually stop all those enemies in a massive raid. It starts breaking down into an unfair game of sheer maths that you can't win because mass combat and melee is being performed by a system which is intended for small scale firefights. There's no configuration of colonist tactics that lets your ten guys win a fight where sixty a-holes with clubs and spears can just run up and beat them to death in a horde despite the presence of machine guns and assault rifles.

The sappers always take the same routes (depending on which one of a handful of spawn points they always come from on a map is used) to bypass your fixed turret defences, and can't 'see' deadfall traps. I've never had the slightest problem with seeing where attacks like to try and go, then covering it in deadfall traps. The next time, their digger goes down (horribly) and the rest just attack my defences like normal.

Idle colonists should perform joy activities. They'll still be tagged as 'idle', but since they have nothing better to do they'll do the reasonable thing and go use any joy facilities that exist instead of wandering around.

It's what anyone would do if they had no work to do.

Tanks, or other vehicles that are immune to standard small arms. Sure, it may be a little bit of a 'save or die' scenario where not having an appropriate weapon means you literally can't hurt the bad guy, but a colony rich enough to justify fielding such heavy war material should be able to build or buy heavy weapons, or build their own tank (because no random trader will be shipping such a thing).

I'd see it as a 'high technology' update where the colony continues to expand its ability to build technology, to the point where you can, laboriously, build and maintain power armour, personal shields, and heavy weapons, and make use of some vehicles. It'd be quite a fun thing if you could build motorbikes and such (or tame and train horses even), which pawns can get on and use to travel long distances outside the home area.

Then you can keep raids to a more manageable number of elite enemies with power armour and vehicles, and mechanoids can become a more common enemy because your own vehicles and armour allow you to better counter them directly without having to cheese the pants off the game.

[still]

SaintD, joy, as you said, highlights colonists existence as people. So, we constantly go on walks and play pool and horseshoes, but we never use the toilet? You have basically just contradicted yourself by saying that joy is only in the game to make the colonists more relatable to real life. This is exactly what toilets will do.

I didn't contradict myself, because you're trying to pick out a single strawman and beat it to death. You are STILL not providing any compelling reason whatsoever that toilets need to be a relevant part of the game that requires such specific attention.

What I actually said was that the joy system already abstracts the general need for pawns not to work all day, and actually makes the addition of toilets as a functional need even more irrelevant. Your basic argument is one of weighing down the game with little details when it quite clearly isn't that game. Every argument FOR toilets as a serviced need ends up having to quite pathetically change the concept of time itself in the game in order to accommodate it. That's stupid, and bad design. Plumbing and irrigation, WATER as a need, not toilets....fantastic. Toilets in themselves....stupid.

As I already pointed out, to pound the point into your head again since you're likely just gonna stick beat a strawman again, toilets don't create any gameplay that's worth having. On their own they're an almost immediately forgotten little detail you plonk down and forget about forever. they're an irritating distraction every time you start up a new colony. With an operational water system in play....they're still an almost forgotten little detail you plonk down as an afterthought and forget about forever, because you're building a plumbing system to fulfill the far more interesting and gameplay relevant need to secure and manage your water supply for food and drink.

Everyone who thinks toilets is a good idea seems to end up talking about and getting excited about the water system aspect of it, and with good reason, because a water system would be great. But as I ALSO said earlier, this isn't about a water system, it's about toilets and dumping, which in and of themselves are a detail that simply doesn't need to be taken out of the abstract of a colonist's day.

Toilets utterly fail the "What does this add to the gameplay?" question, and now they're trying to pork barrel their way in as a rider on the water system bill. I utterly reject that. A water system in no way requires toilets as a part of it, and you're still not giving any sort of decent gameplay reason why it should be relevant.