Messages

It's not actually that hard to calculate DPS with inaccurate weapons; multiply the raw DPS by the chance to hit to get effective DPS at a given range. Burst weapons are a little more complicated, but not by much.

This is how you'd calculate raw DPS: (Damage per shot * Shots per burst)/((Warmup + Cooldown) + ((Shots per burst - 1) * Burst delay))
With less than 100% accuracy, you'd multiply that number by whatever your % chance to hit is. I banged out a spreadsheet to calculate DPS with various ranged weapons. if I knew how shooting skill affected accuracy, I could have thrown that in as well for even more gun theory goodness.

[attachment deleted by admin - too old]

is there ways to replant the forest? Nope... growing zones are the only way to get trees once the forest starts disappearing.

That is exactly the way to replant the forest. I don't see what your concern is here. You can't replant trees unless you tell your guys to replant trees? How is that not already what you seem to be asking for?

We have a large generated map at start of the game and we will be use just one little bit/square of it.

The game doesn't keep track of any square you're not in.

If you want a bigger area to run around in, roll a larger map size.

Rimworld isn't a game about raids. There's more stuff going on. At least, there should be.
It's fine that you can plan and build correctly and be mostly imprevious to raids.
It's fine.
There are other problems to deal with.

Gosh, and how many of those are easier to deal with from inside your subterranean doom fortress? Would that be... all of them where it makes any difference at all? Dwarfing is never a disadvantage.

Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms. 

The difference between fortresses in real life and fortresses in Rimworld is that you couldn't feed yourself from inside your fortress in real life, which changes the whole dynamic between attackers and defenders. The ability to make a nigh-unbeatable killzone is less problematic when a sufficiently well-supplied enemy can force you to choose between leaving it or starving to death.

At present, the enemy comes in great enough numbers that if you don't have a big defensive advantage they'll kill you, so while I like the idea of promoting more open-field engagements the enemy's numbers are currently tilted toward "killbox or lose." Their numbers would need to be adjusted along with any change that makes you leave your killbox.

Which is, however,why fortresses in real life usdually had food supplies for several months stored within the fortress (and also access to deep wells for water supply), forcing any attackers to spend several months sieging the city.

Compared to RL equivalents of attacks on castles, the attackers in Rimworld usually come in woefully underprepared

Of course they stored food. And yet, starving them out remained the most common way of taking a fortress. In Rimworld, that's not a viable option.

I think that comment about drug testing labs is highly suggestive of where all this is coming from.

I feel that traits should be the thing that does not change. There are other systems (injuries and moods, in particular) that are made for this. While I really don't like the idea of traits being gained or lost, I wouldn't mind those systems being expanded to reflect what's been going on in your colony a little better.

Frankly, given that fortresses are so effective in Real life, I would be surprised if there was a way to balance the game to make them not effective in RimWorld without ridiculous Deus Ex Machina mechanisms. 

The difference between fortresses in real life and fortresses in Rimworld is that you couldn't feed yourself from inside your fortress in real life, which changes the whole dynamic between attackers and defenders. The ability to make a nigh-unbeatable killzone is less problematic when a sufficiently well-supplied enemy can force you to choose between leaving it or starving to death.

At present, the enemy comes in great enough numbers that if you don't have a big defensive advantage they'll kill you, so while I like the idea of promoting more open-field engagements the enemy's numbers are currently tilted toward "killbox or lose." Their numbers would need to be adjusted along with any change that makes you leave your killbox.

I missed the easy version on the previous page, since screenshots/discussion were all about the repair kits. I'll make my own tweaks from there as a starting point.

Thanks for doing this. I've wanted this feature for a while.

I don't particularly like this idea. It adds micromanagement to something that I'd rather not have to pay attention to. I think you're on the right track with forcing people to take up farming outside to get them out of their dwarf holes, though. What I would suggest is for planting crops in one tile to take less time than it currently does, and for crops to offer lower yields per tile. While the overall time spent farming to feed your colonists wouldn't change, the amount of land you'd need to dedicate to farming to match the same level of output would increase. Bigger farms are harder to box in and hide behind chokepoints, so enemy raid sizes could be scaled down with the expectation that you'd probably have to sortie out to meet them instead of just hiding in one impenetrably fortified position.

Has this been said? It's a very long thread at this point. Anyway:

Shoes.

I feel like this is a survival game, and good shoes are a top 10 piece of survival gear.

Could do for some gloves, too. Tired of guys having their fingers explode in fistfights.

I'll help you figure it out.

If someone takes mountainous start with the intention of making a mountain base, then obviously that's cheesing one's way to the mountainbase.
he made sure he'll get a mountainbase (probably with an all-year growing period to go with it), even though he didn't have to.

If he does this, then there is no logic in also complaining that the mountainbase is too good and that it must be nerfed.
Nobody's forcing you but your own desire to "cheat" by creating the best conditions you can think of for yourself.

Myself, instead of cheesing it, play random.
So there's something for everybody. Those who want an easy game and those who want a harder game and those who want random.


Also, infestations weren't around back in 2014 I think.

Oh for crying out loud, get over yourself.

What happens when a player randomly rolls a mountain start? The inherent advantages of dwarfing are still there and still a problem. What do you think about that, now that you're not distracting yourself with this ridiculous fixation you've got on how they've violated some idiotic standard of purity by not rolling random?

Wait, let me guess: you think it's not a problem that one strategy is far superior because players who don't want to make it easy for themselves can just decide not to do it, right? It's like you've got a fundamental disagreement with trying to balance things.

hmmm... a thought occurs..

What if crops depleted the nutrients in soil after like one or two harvests?
Then the nutrients regrow over the course of like... I dunno half a year or maybe a whole year?
(just what ever is longer than it takes to deplete)
In that case, I feel like the abundance of flat land in plains and forests would allow open bases to cycle farm plots and make best use of soil. While the limited space of mountainous regions would limit this, sometimes leading to all available soil being infertile.

Imma put this in its own post..

If a system of dynamic soil fertility were in place, I would expect to be able to rotate through a few different types of crops to avoid depleting the soil. This works even better than letting a field lay fallow for a season, and I'd be highly annoyed if the game simulated the problem without simulating the best real world solution appropriate for the level of technology (which hasn't been "let it sit for a while" since the 1500s).

I don't like this idea. At all.

There is no interesting decision to be made with a system like this. It's purely an inconvenience rather than an obstacle that can be approached and overcome creatively.

Now if you were suggesting that refrigeration take substantially less power than freezing, thereby giving refrigeration a place, I'd be on board with that.

"Lovin'" should be a joy activity.

Note that there are mods that change this. There is one that allows you to reclaim a portion of textiles in an item based on the durability it has left and the skill of the tailor. Another allows items to be repaired.