Messages

Natives could just start fires without you knowing and dont even appear on the map until after they have launched their attack.

Ambush events would force us as players to actually have dedicated soldiers and patrols/guards like so many of suggested before.  Its not needed at all right now but would be in this case.

NO!  no stealth!  we're not members of the colony, we're fellow storytellers.  We work with the AI storyteller to tell a rich story.  We're not colony members, colony managers, or God.  No stealth is something i VERY much agree with Tynan on.

...fire arrows are a nifty idea though.

crossbows aren't really useful...the bows in game already simulate crossbows fairly well.  They already do ludicrously high damage.  Crossbows had shorter range, worse accuracy, slightly longer reload times, but more power.  Since more power isn't really very feasible considering the current power of bows, adding a WORSE bow into the game for more advanced troops would be a bit silly.  If anything, rename and retexture the great bow into a crossbow (reduce the range) and add in a new bow with long range, faster shooting, and about half the damage.

The problem with adding in "full plate" as an in between from armor and power armor is that it would have to be horribly unwieldy...There's a reason those guys were mounted.  Their mobility was utter crap on foot.

Finally, while i would love to see the medieval raids with different behaviors, such as i mentioned in my last post, It currently can't be done...the AI doesn't allow for that...yet.  If the combat AI improves (and there's no reason to think it won't....just not for a while), then new factions with unique combat tactics are quite feasible (and, in fact, almost guaranteed to happen).

most of those games (empire:total war comes to mind) scale the enemy down, and ALSO scale YOUR units down as well. 

Being an alpha game in the progress of implementing features and adding to the game, balance tends to take a backseat to features....since balance has to be REdone every time a new feature is implemented anyways. 

Asking the developer to add in things to scale and balance encounters at this point in development just isn't feasible.  There IS, however, a thriving community of modders active in these forums, and asking them to create a "super faction" to replace tribals with an opposite extreme certainly viable, and much more likely to see results than asking the developer to start working on scaling and balance.

You might also get a bit more support if you worked WITH other people on the forums for clarification, rather than reacting with hostility or insulting condescension.

Lastly, have you considered the fact that raiding parties of fewer, better armed pawns is self-defeating?  All you have to do is survive ONE of them and your colonists will be kitted out with the best gear money can buy.  Attacking a base of 12 people with 3 power-armored charge-rifled, high-skilled supersoldiers doesn't do much when the 12 pawns just come out of a doorway in a giant swarm of deadly clubbing...and now they have a new colonist or two and some damned fine gear, making the next raid even LESS of a challenge, rather than more of one.

In the current scenario, 10 averagely-armed colonists might face 30 tribals...without a killbox or other terrain or AI manipulating method, this will be a tough fight, you may lose a significant number of colonists and suffer serious damage.  If you win, the loot is mostly good for gaining some silver, and MAYBE replacing the weapon on a poorly equipped brawler...and next time, you're facing the same fighting force while you're still recovering, or an even larger one if you've recovered and continued to advance.

In your "few, well-armed pawns" raids, raids get EASIER as they increase in "difficulty." your 10 averagely-armed colonists might face 4-5 super soldiers.  Assuming they win a given encounter, those weapons and any captured "super pawns" would significantly bolster the fighting ability of the colony, so that next time, facing 5-6 super soldiers, they'd be dispatched even easier thru personal shielded brawlers and sniper/assult-rifle wielding shooters.

Raising the gear OR skills of the enemy forces in Rimworld, DIRECTLY affects the fighting ability and advancement of the colony in a rather extreme manner, since the colony basically scavenges it's combat potential from the raids it endures.  high and low skill/gear opponents makes a relatively minor difference of raid lethality IF it is size-adjusted like it is (and like you want to keep), but the higher the gear, the less difficult future challenges become.

This happens in planting, building, mining, hauling, cleaning, doctoring, firefighting, wardening, and nearly anything else.

Constructing is the easiest to give an example of, but you can apply it to most any activity.

Redfields grabs some wood to start constructing the walls.
Redfields drops all the wood into the wall sections and starts building section 1 (of, lets say, 10)
Jerbear, across the map, gets a job update, and decides to do section 2
Redfields finishes section 1, moves to 3, then 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Redfields goes and does something else since he's done.
Jerbear gets 80% of the way to the wall to construct it, long after Redfields is done, and gets too tired.
Jerbear cancels his job to go sleep.
Sometime later, someone checks jobs again and FINALLY finishes section 2.

Or lets go even more common and Jerbear doesn't get tired, instead he finishes his job...but still way slower than if Redfields could just OVERRIDE Jerbear's "calling" of section 2.

Ideally, the game would let Redfields do all 10 sections...unless maybe i manually specifically assign Jerbear to construct some of that. 

As it is now, having multiple colonists assigned to do a type of job USUALLY speeds that job up.  Sometimes, though, it uses up far more "man hours" than it should, as people cross maps to do trivial parts of a job that could have been more efficiently accomplished by 1 person.  Occasionally it even slows down a job when travel time for a job causes the last part of a job to be delayed significantly beyond the initial colonist's potential finish time.

Perhaps it might be possible to have a toggle?  maybe you could toggle so that a higher skill colonist would ignore "reserved by" markers of a lower skill colonist and force the lower skill colonist to perform a job check when his reserve is cleared?

This would help give a specific, measurable indicator of when a job reservation would be ignored, while avoiding potential irritating issues with the possibility of a low skill constructor or crafter wiping a higher skill constructor or crafter's reserved job.

as far as better quality gear goes....no.  Why would medieval factions be chock full of superior and excellent swords when my electric powered smithing bench can't even reliably do that with a "strong expert" in the craft?

Metal armor is functionally similar to clothing as far as bullets go...in that it does next to nothing.  In fact, the reason soldiers stopped wearing armor historically was due to the prevalence of firearms.  Slowing yourself down in maximillian plate armor was stupid if it allowed your opponent to get another volley of musket fire off at you (not to mention it was horrifically expensive).  Unfortunately, in this game, sword damage and bullet damage are also functionally identical.  They both deal sharp damage.

In medieval society, nearly no one was heavily armed and armored.  By nearly no one, i mean in relation to the rest of the combatants in a medieval clash.  The people in the full plate armor?  those were the rich knights....each one of them had a few hundred unarmored peasants with spears, pitchforks, and maybe a simple wooden shield.  The common soldiers of the day usually had a sword, a shield (usually wooden), and MAYBE a leather cap and hauberk (torso armor).  The archers generally had a short sword, bow, and whatever armor they could scavenge, often only a helmet, if that.

A "functional" medieval raid would consist of a single heavily armored figure on horseback and some 20-30 unarmored mooks with shoddy spears alongside another 10 or so unarmored archers who break and flee at the first sign of melee combat with them.

Alternatively it could be a medieval "army" raid of several footsoldiers with the aforementioned leather armor (which is just leather-quality clothes in rimworld...) and a longsword or gladius and shield...they'd be supported by an even number of archers who would shoot volley fire and avoid anyone attempting to close with them.

Functionally, a medieval raid would still FEEL almost exactly like a tribal raid, at least until some semblance of stylized tactics are added, at which point tribals would act much more individually and hit-and-run, avoiding full-on shootouts or slugfests, while the medieval raids would either be a mass rush of peasants under volleyed arrowfire (tribals right now) or a "shield wall" of sword/spearmen advancing with concentrated archer support behind them.

where has it been said that space traders are being "replaced" or that goods recieved will be brought by land caravans?

As far as i'm aware, all that is changing is that ground-traveling, faction based caravans for trading are being ADDED....not replacing anything.

someone already posted the relevant issue here.

Smooth stone is not 100% better.

If room IMPRESSIVENESS is the goal, impressiveness takes value into account...smooth stone is 3 beauty and 0 value....carpet is 2 beauty with some value.

another possibility....you have all your chicks with the hens?  Maybe a male chick grew up and fertilized some eggs before you noticed it aged up.

the moment you set up that zone that doesn't include your food storage for your animals in 15-20 seconds....your animals can no longer haul food.

I'd rather my animals be hauling food than my colonists.

from a nutrition per produced food perspective, yes, hay falls short.

from a nutrition per colonist labor hour perspective, i'd imagine hay comes out on top.

The shortfall with having to haul slightly more of it is offset by the time it takes to haul, cook, and haul the completed meal.  It also assumes that the animals aren't getting into the fine/lavish meal supply...

The suggestion is still valid - let us limit WHAT our animals eat by type, rather than just by allowed zones.

sure, but now consider (though its less likely to be able to easily be fit into your graphs) cooking time/effort.

Your chart only really matters if SPACE is the issue...eg. i can't FIT more food into my base/map/hydroponics/whatever.

assuming you have enough space to grow whatever food you want, how does the comparison hold up when you factor in the time it takes for cooking the meal (hauling ingredients, cooking, hauling meal....even with ideal stockpiles, there is still a LITTLE hauling done) in addition to growing the food.

What about non-ice maps, where lots of people will be using fine meals as their primary meal source, and now are cooking with meat too (also, more hauling...)

The colonist effort in planting, cutting, and hauling is about 70% higher for haygrass than meals (85 ingredients vs. 50), but i'm sure that 70% disappears...and then some...when you factor in cooking labor.

If you're in a situation where each scrap of food matters, then cooking is the way to go (or mass creating nutrient paste meals via feeding/cancelling prisoners and patients), but if you just want an efficiently running colony where production per colonist labor hour is maximized, then maybe raw is better.

btw, something i learned late.

Thrumbo horns are roughly equivalent to something like a superior quality steel gladius as a weapon - 15 damage, 1.66 CD.

I'd never even thought of the horn being a weapon, but in a couple games, i managed to take out a thrumbo via door ducking very early in the game....made good use of the horn as a weapon for a little while.

far as clothing goes, i picked up the mending mod....haven't looked back since....

eliminates just one more bit of time-consuming micromanaging.  Set the outfits to only 51%+ and let them repair anything they take off, and put it back on all on their own.

That would be like comparing a loaf bread at $100 to your electricity bill

That example doesn't work because electricity isn't a substitute good for bread. That said, the electricity cost of baking the bread yourself could be used as a comparison. And even if it ultimately cost more, the consumer might choose to bake bread out of entertainment.

Because for recreation many entertainment substitutes exist. How is the consumer going to spend Friday night? Playing board games? At a movie? Playing RimWorld? Watching netflix? Wining and dining? They're all viable entertainment substitutes the consumer has to choose from for fun.

Not to take away from the main point, you wouldn't walk into your local Spec's or Target and ask why they charge so much for that?, that consumers wouldn't normally question price points around a similar range anyways.

I don't follow this post at all...

First, i have no problem with the $30 price point.  However, many of the posts defending the price are rather...poorly logic'd.

Food, even fast food, shouldn't substitute for entertainment.  Even a movie night isn't directly comparable, because movie night is often a social activity, and rimworld is not.

Rimworld needs to be compared to other games/solo entertainment.  True, it costs as much as many more sleek-looking games out there, but the draw is in the replayability, longevity, and depth of the game.  It certainly delivers $30 worth of entertainment.  Many other comparably priced games do as well...some deliver more, some fall short.  The general forum consensus seems to be that while $30 might be more than the game SEEMS to be worth at a glance, it has definitely delivered AT LEAST $30 of enjoyment to us all.

Finally, your last point just bugged me.  People SHOULD question the price of the items in retail stores or anywhere.  Of course no one bothers to ask why things are priced the way they are in a target...because the employees aren't responsible for the pricing.  People can and DO ask the manufacturers those questions.  This forum, and the "top dog Tynan" setup for Rimworld gives forum goers a unique opportunity to discuss things like the price point in a setting where the developer WILL see it.  We'd be fools NOT to have this discussion and talk about this aspect of rimworld.

I don't want to play the sims.

Water can easily be rolled into hunger.  My pawns can clean themselves without my input or monitoring, thank you.

Or you could simply look at is as:

The enjoyment gained from this game, in hours spent, is COMPLETELY worth 30$.  Would it sell more at $20?  Sure.  But Tynan would make less money overall, because he'd have to sell 3 for every 2 he otherwise would.  Would he make more money at $40?  Doubtful.  Past $30 I think there'd be a big falloff in buyers, since anything over 30 starts to feel like one of those "big" game purchases.

The reviews of this game should almost certainly fall into the "overwhelmingly positive" category, which is also a huge boost for any game on steam.