Messages

While I agree this is a low priority, I'd LOVE it if I could specify a biome type, mountain level, and/or 1-2 stone types I want and let the world map help me find what I'm looking for. Sometimes it takes me a good 10 minutes to find what I'm looking for by clicking on every tile by hand...

Okay, Rimworld players are depraved monsters who lock caravans inside geothermal generator rooms and cheese them with artifacts and boomalopes to get their stuff. I get it. You want to penalize that. But there ARE some of us who don't play that way and are sick of being punished for caravans being morons who stand in front of turrets and Leeroy into manhunter packs and then blame us for it.

My proposed solution: LET ME TELL THEM TO LEAVE. A caravan is milling around and I get a manhunter/raid/siege/whatever alert? Okay, while everyone else is suiting up for battle, my one pacifist pawn makes him/herself useful by going over to the comm console, calling the parent faction of the caravan, and saying "Danger is approaching from [pick a cardinal direction], evacuate your caravan immediately." Or maybe let me tell the leader of the caravan directly! Just let me tell them to GTFO and pick a direction where they are least likely to get murderized. They immediately leave, and now I can shoot at raiders or rabid cows without having to worry about their idiots setting my base on fire trying to "help" and then bitching at me when they die. EVERYONE'S HAPPY.

Anesthetizing doesn't kill.

Ahhhh... ok, so it's just for if you want to immobilize an animal for some reason without killing it?

So does "euthanize by cut" imply that there is or will be some other way to euthanize?

Euthanising by cut is essentially "sedate the patient, then put them down in the most humane way", which is why it costs medicine to do so.

But how is this different from the other offered option of euthanizing by anesthetizing? If they both cost medicine and both end with the "patient" being dead, why offer a choice? Is there some gameplay effect that isn't readily apparent?

My impression was that anesthetizing would be the humane option (you put the animal to sleep), whereas euthanize by cut would be the quick and brutal option (you slash its throat and it dies in pain but more quickly than if you left it to bleed out from combat wounds or "hunted" it by incompetently blowing holes in it for hours), but I can't even tell how they differ.

Some manhunter cows attacked my colony and were quickly dispatched, leaving two cows downed rather than dead. I wanted to end their suffering quickly rather than let them lie there bleeding out for hours, so I went to mark them for euthanizing, as I usually do, since hunting a downed animal usually just results in some moron standing there for hours blowing the poor thing's legs off one by one while it bellows in pain. Anyway, I noticed that in A17 there seem to now be 2 options to euthanize an animal: one says "euthanize by anesthetizing" or something like that--it seems like the old euthanize option, only now it requires medicine, which actually makes sense to me--and the other says "euthanize by cut." I thought "oh good, I can just have my doctor cut the cow's neck, like slaughtering, and not use any medicine."

Apparently not! Both operations require medicine. Why do you need medicine to cut an animal's neck to kill it? Am I misunderstanding what "euthanize by cut" even means? If both operations require medicine, what is the point of offering a choice between them? This was very early in a colony without a good grower, so I had no herbal medicine, and I wasn't about to spend my precious regular medicine on a future hamburger, so I ended up having to let it bleed out all over the place and it made me kind of grumpy. Can anyone explain these options to me?

In my previous colonies, "Killed/harmed colony animal" would appear as a social debuff for pawns who accidentally shot a dog in the bum during a raid or whatever, so I'm familiar with its existence. But I never saw it appear after a colonist *slaughtered* a marked animal. That is now happening to poor Sparkles, who is apparently incurring the ire of her fellow colonists for slaughtering the hideous and nasty-tempered lizards that the colony specifically keeps as a food source. I have no idea why they should dislike her for producing food for them.

I could post a save for you to look at if you want, but the trouble is that there's no proof there that she hasn't been killing other colony animals by shooting at them or w/e--you just have to take my word for it, and I assure you she has not. But if you still want the save let me know.

I feel like zoning might be the answer here. If you could attach a time schedule to a zone, you could prevent pawns from entering certain areas of the map past a certain time. Like a curfew. Would work well for animals as well, you could let them graze outdoors during the day and come back in during the night.

I like this idea a lot. It would a solve a lot of problems at once if I could forbid my colonists from leaving the compound at certain times. No more night owls trying to hunt sleeping animals! No more pawns trying to mine a rock or haul that one piece of slag metal in the furthest corner of the map ten minutes before bedtime!

Dang it I just want my little village to have natural looking outdoor paths that aren't messy, ugly dirt without having to permanently chain a pawn to the stone cutting table. Is that so wrong? 

A17 adds a less-resource intensive stone flooring option, intended for outdoors use; It's not as beautiful (I think it's neutral beauty) but it's 1 unit cheaper, and a lot faster, if I'm recalling correctly.

So kind of the stone version of the "intermediate" metal flooring? That seems like a nice compromise. I like it.

Definitely agree that the system needs work. Right now it depends far too strongly on causing friction through traits that are both superficial (ugliness just should not matter at all in a survival situation) and static (pawns who've been in love and married for years will never, ever get over that facial scar or annoying voice their beloved spouse has, and every pawn has exactly the same standard of what is annoying). Human beings don't work like this. People who share a bond--through battle, mutual support, being in love, or just coming to be friends through the ordinary means--WILL stop caring about superficial crap like facial scars, and when pawns in Rimworld don't, it makes it harder to see them as believably human.

Responding to *behavior* rather than static traits is the direction I'd like to see the social system go in. The Abrasive and Kind traits already do this; they directly influence pawn behavior and thus will indirectly cause other pawns to like or dislike you based on what you have actually done to them. They also do not cause the ridiculous problem the superficial traits have where a really ugly wanderer joins, you immediately tell him to go punch a bear, and everyone in the colony is delighted for weeks because their "rival" who they never passed a single word with is dead. This exploit doesn't work with an Abrasive pawn because the behavior that the trait influences hasn't happened yet. This is how it should be.

There are traits that do this in a less direct way too--such as Teetotalers vs. addicts or Hard Working vs. Lazy. These represent fundamental differences in philosophy or lifestyle, and they influence pawn behavior too, and in a way that would believably cause friction in a survival situation.

So: more traits that influence behavior, more reactivity to behavior. Other than that I don't have concrete suggestions because, well, I'm not a programmer, and I don't know how best to implement such things.

Ah, I see. I guess I haven't had a situation where I wanted only one or the other... I try to keep my fields tidy so my ungrateful farmers don't complain about all the lovely fertilizer that's left there after a raid. 

Am I reading correctly, that in A17 burning things results in ash piles that must be cleaned?

Ahhh doctors have a benifit as I believe pawns get a social buff towards said doctor when they are treated.

As far as I am aware, the only social buff available for doctoring is the +15 for rescuing a downed pawn. It would be nice, and make sense, if pawns reacted positively to having successful medical work performed on them, since people usually do feel grateful for that, but I can imagine how it might be exploited. (Intentional Punch-Heal cycles!)

Abrasive Doc: Alright dumbass, there's your bandaid. Stop petting bears, you idjit.
Colonist: (irritated) Uh, sure thing doc. You're always right..
Abrasive Doc: I know. Now get the hell out of my medbay.
Colonist: (between gritted teeth) You're one of my favorite people, you know that?

Ha, that's pretty much how I imagined it.

There is an auto-home-zone toggle in the bottom right corner of the screen. It's on by default. Turn it off, and the game will no longer auto-create the home zone around structures and stockpiles, leaving you to decide precisely where you want to put it. Your pawns will no longer start sweeping up rock rubble in the middle of nowhere unless you tell them to.

Turning this toggle off is one of this first things I do now when I start a new game.

Thanks for the replies. I guess I've just gotten very lucky; out of the 4-5 of them that I've had, only one of my Abrasive pawns was ever involved in a serious rivalry. The last one I had, an Abrasive doctor, was one of the best-liked guys in the colony.

Topic. The description of the trait doesn't really make it clear and the wiki seems to have outdated information ("-4 mood for anyone who has a social chat with this colonist. Stacks up to 3 times" is obviously no longer true). Are Abrasive pawns more likely to slight/insult other pawns? More likely to start a social fight? How much more likely?

I've had several Abrasive pawns in various colonies in A15 and 16 and it's hard for me to notice much difference between them and other pawns.