Messages

[woefully]

I made mention of it in my long edit above, but quoting so you get it as well.  It does come down to perspective.  A detached third person vs immersed first person perspective when playing.  If removed, and guiding/playing the game like it is an ant farm, that is a fair play.  In which case, the drama is not there.  Logically it isn't a hard choice.  Deal with the temp mood penalty for the long term betterment of all.

Personally, I think it's fantastic that there are players out there who will slaughter their own colonists without a second thought.  Again, that makes the whole situation, this time on the meta level, more dramatic, not less. 

This feels like another argument that assumes easy access to resources.

You have woefully misread me.  You seem to think that I advocate never euthanizing colonists.  To me that is just as dull as always euthanizing them.  Dramatically, the middle ground between the two is where the rubber meets the road.  When the material penalty for the moral decision becomes so great that the moral decision becomes unsustainable.  Despite your protestations, I don't believe that that point is ever "always, instantly".

And despite my blanket statement above ("Monsters!"), I don't believe as Vaporisor says, that players are either 100% merciless number jugglers or 100% moralizing role-players who damn the consequences.  I don't think that any player wants to kill his own colonists.  Some of us will keep them alive as long as possible, to the ruination of the colony.  Others will kill them immediately, almost spitefully, and blame the game for making it such an economically sound decision.  But I think most of us fall somewhere in between, and where exactly is a fascinating question.

I think that may be what this is really about.  theapolaustic1 wants a hard-headed, material reason - any reason - to justify feeding and caring for a crippled colonist.  He feels he is "forced" to kill by the necessities of the situation, though he can't escape that it's really his choice.  He wants a straw to grasp for so he doesn't have to make the hard decision.  But the decision is inescapable, and whatever desperation drove him, he chose to take the life of a loved one.

[more]

You keep insisting I've missed the point of the game because you've got some need to be mightier than thou on an internet forum, but you're not interested in me saying there's drama in "do I work to save them or get rid of them now". You're just keen on playing general hospital and need to be condescending about it for some reason.

Sigh, and you're being condescending right back, so where does that leave us?

-----

The alternative you propose certainly has its drama too, as well as a "crunchier" gameplay decision.  But honestly, I think the decision the game has now is more interesting because in gameplay terms it's a no-brainer: a unit that can't work is obviously of no use to the colony.

But if you frame it as a scene in a story, the drama is super intense!  "Everyone works in my colony, so see to it that you're never injured.  If you can't lift a gun or a shovel, you don't get fed.  No exceptions, no loopholes.  I have a bullet saved for each of you."  Jesus Christ!  What would it be like to live in that colony?  To me that's much better theater than that one episode where Worf hurts his back and has to face being crippled but you know it's all going to end up fine because there's always a fix for everything.

And the other decision (keeping them alive) is equally fascinating, and continues to be fascinating with every "wasted" resource.

i understand the whole stressed thing making it impossible but it used to be the longer you had them prisoner and more you warden talked to them the easier they got to recruit. now it seem's if they are 0.5% chance when captured they will always stay that . may aswell lock em in a hole without a real bed *shrugs*

No, making them happier makes it easier I believe.  I know the chance can fluctuate.  Having a high-Social Warden talk to them a lot can raise their Mood astronomically (I wish I could get that "Talked to Warden" bonus on my own colonists!), and it seems like the higher it goes the higher the recruit % goes.  Of course if a prisoner started with a 99 resistance you're better off just letting them go or ... whatnot. 

[you have decided]

A foregone conclusion isn't really drama, it's just a different death.

It's not a foregone conclusion.  It's just what you have decided you'll always do because it's "game-optimal".  I suppose you also always murder lone travelers to steal the fillings in their teeth, just because you can get away with it i.e. "game-optimal".

If you're not interested in the meaning of the lives and deaths of your "pawns", if you think of them as nothing more than pieces on a game board, tools to help you "win", you just mayyyybe have missed the point of the game.

Wow ... the decision to euthanize a functional vegetable, or keep them alive and as comfortable as possible ... some of you don't think that's dramatic?  You guys are freakin monsters.

[was]

Would your view point change any if the balancing part of this wasn't included?

On reflection ... not really 

Including it as an option in the base game would imply that it was fully supported as an intended style for the game to be played, which it isn't and wouldn't be.  If it was officially added, I would want it to be done right ... well balanced, tested, and a feature that Ludeon could be proud of.  Doing it without putting in the work to do it well would be worse than not doing it at all.  One zebra's opinion.

Listen, I'm not unsympathetic.  I myself drafted up a long post a few days ago, about the potential for stealth mechanics and stealth-related encounters.  Before I posted it, though, I did my research, and found the threads on Fog Of War and found out (and found myself agreeing with) why FOW-flavored content is not a good fit for this game.  I abandoned the post and haven't looked back, and now I'm here urging you to essentially do the same thing    Friendly advice.

Yeah, in my current colony, people would go outside, have a nice walk past the garden, and go a few doors down to the dining room for their meals.  This went on for several months.  Then they got lazy, or something, and decided it was too far to walk.  At that point the vogue became eating straight out of the container while standing in the freezer.  Luckily, I had some space, so I just put a (small) new room adjoining the freezer with an autodoor to absolutely minimize resistance.  Now they eat sitting down in that little cell and like it much better.  I guess.

EDIT: lol @ "idiots.jpg" 

For a slapdash version, I still think a mod would be best.  No sense distracting Tynan with this optional mode when he has enough to do with the real game.

Ehh.  You're arguing for an expensive "option" for those who aren't satisfied with the intended base game.  I could almost see it if there was no balancing to be done, but adding what would in effect be a whole new game mode is too much to ask for.

Just ask someone to make a mod that removes the alerts.  Poof, done.  Anything more and we are getting into the whole stealth/Fog of War argument again.  Search for FOW and you'll see that the subject has already been beat to death and this game mode is not coming to the base game.

Making (I guess one by biome) 7 variants of each creature is very expensive.

It's not by biome.  No one wants 7 different kinds of rhinos because there has to be a desert rhino and an arctic rhino equivalent.  Hell, some biomes have barely any animals at all, and some are crawling with different creatures.  No one wants to "average them out" so all biomes have the same wildlife gameplay.

The point is that right now every planet feels the same.  Muffalo, rhinos, and boomalopes are on every world.  I've stopped generating new planets for each playthrough, because there's no reason to make new ones.  Like, no reason whatsoever.

It would be neat to have a world with no Muffalo, but with birdlike Floops instead that filled the same gameplay role.  If it was done this way, we wouldn't need to worry about rebalancing gameplay for every new combination of elements, because all that would change would be the skin ... and that might be enough to make a new planet feel "fresh".

New art assets are expensive, but even just a few variations would be appreciated so the rainforests on Ramsa II at least look a little different from the rainforests on Bowman 19.  Honestly right now every single colony in every game could all exist on just one specific planet and we would never know the difference.

Yeah ... and of course since you drove them away last time, their armed trading party would still be kind of weakened, a tempting target for you to just kill them all.  Of course then your faction would absolutely plummet and you could never call them again.

Or they might be confident enough to offer the ransom as a ruse, and then end up attacking you again instead of going through with the trade.

Lots of possibilities

Actually I feel I have a pretty good handle on how the animal systems work mechanically, but I feel like I could use some advice.

* For my "barn" I like to make a big, freestanding room with a roof over only half of it.  I plant grass in the roofless half and store kibble and surplus vegetables in the roofed half.  What do you think of this setup?  It seems like planting anything in the barn isn't that profitable as sprouts are eaten before they mature.

* Should I be making a fully enclosed, air conditioned barn instead?  Maybe with a roofless yard adjoining?  The half & half roof idea just seems neat.

* My barn area always seems to be scoured of grass immediately and I feel like this clear cut dirt floor is not ideal.  Should I be making a larger corral so grass can continue to exist?

* I feel weird that there is no "fence" wall type.  I want to make a real corral, not a roofless room with solid walls.

* Managing reproduction feels strange.  A bunch of rabbits are born, and now I have a dozen of the things all demanding food.  Yet it doesn't feel right to slaughter a bunch of baby bunnies to keep the population under control.  What do you think?  I've started slaughtering the adults when the babies are born, and selling excess baby rabbits to any trader who will take them.  Overall it seems odd.  Putting fertile eggs in the freezer and having a bunch of refrigerated chickens hatch seems weird too.  Am I just a bad farmer?

Agreed.  Get on the comms, and "ransom back" would be fun, but it would need to be more than just "free money"  Maybe prisoner exchanges would be cool.  A chance they might have prisoner you can get and try to recruit instead or another faction to release for goodwill.  Perhaps instead of silver, some sort of non aggression pact.  Days in exchange for a temporary non violent faction standing meaning the pirates might wander through.  It also means that you just got hit hard, and will send back their wounded in exchange for a bit of a reprieve from the AI.

These are cool ideas.  My first thought was a little simpler - instead of hundreds of silver, the faction might offer to trade you X silver in whatever goods that faction normally has a surplus of.  They might not be able to snap their fingers and make 800 silver appear, but they could bring medicine or whatnot.  Maybe they'd send a trader to make the exchange, like any other.

[also]

I'm in favor of Tynan's stated goal to not add redundant items to the game.

I am also in favor of the idea of reskinning current items and randomizing them on world generation.  Having "Floops" instead of Muffalo on the next world, even though they are statistically identical, sounds cool.

That may seem like a contradiction, but I hope it isn't.

Ransoming prisoners back to their factions is a very cool idea.