Messages

I kinda read conflicting opinions, not sure if these come from the same people.

Some people claim that armors are useless and not worth doing.
Some people claim that nerfing killboxes renders their pawns too easy to damage, and combat is too RNG to risk.

Aren't good quality armors answer to that? I mean, sure - you will get bullet to the brain once in a while, but now we have means of healing such wounds. All it comes down to is whenever you can get those. And tbh this is more interesting (overcoming difficulties) over nothing ever happening to anything and you simply sitting inside your killbox building up your ship.

Dunno D:

I'd like to raise a point that I know is entirely subjective, but one that I think is critical to raise, after a few dozen hours of playing the various iterations of 1.0:

I consider the genuine genius of this game to be the ability for a player to indulge in the weird, the excessive, the outright ridiculous and funny.  I don't consider combat to be an end unto itself, but rather the means to the end: another hurdle to be dealt with, so I can get back to doing weird, hilarious and excessive stuff.  As a result, anything that distracts or frustrates me from my goal detracts from my fun.

It's not critical to me if combat is perfectly balanced, because I don't play this game for the combat...it's one element of a larger picture, and raids are one threat among many to be dealt with in the overall scheme of things.  As a result, I will use cheese tactics unabashedly so I can preserve my colony, keep my colonists safe, and continue to do ridiculous stuff.  I will build obscenely large trap mazes, with 24 turrets waiting in a killbox at the end - because there is something glorious and inherently satisfying about watching 50 pirates blunder into it.  I'll take a week, realtime, to build a 3-thick wall around my base.  I build slowly, play slowly, grow attached to my pawns, and want to keep them from dying by any means necessary...so that I can continue doing ridiculous things.  I can absolutely play this game without "cheese", and have - and often make a conscious and deliberate decision to use it for these very reasons...cheese is often hilarious, and lots of fun.   

With my personal ethos stated, my conclusion is this:  I know that we're in a phase where the game is being re-balanced, so the conversation is naturally being directed towards how combat is being re-vamped, how AI will path better to increase tension and remove "cheese" tactics, etc., and I understand the importance of that in it's context - but I personally feel that the camera lense is narrowing on this to a degree where the other, and for me, more important elements of the game are somewhat falling by the wayside in the conversation: the weird, the bizarre, and especially the hilarious.

Again: I'm speaking subjectively, but I would love to see the focus turn somewhat into how the game is expanding upon those elements that drew me to this game to begin with.  I guess it's a fundamental shift from the question "is it balanced/fair" to "is it fun?".  For me, fun in this game IS excess.  It's watching a Pirate's brain light on fire when they get hit with a Psychic Shock Lance.  It's hitting an Animal Pulser for the first time, not knowing what exactly it will do.  It's cracking open an Ancient Evil.  It's watching two factions battle it out in front of my base with incendiaries, with me running around putting out the flames through the crossfire.  It's the first time I discover I can harvest kidneys.  It's the first time I tame a boomalope, put him in my barn, and then realize it's got a heart condition.  It's Muffalos getting into the yayo while I wasn't watching.  It's Pirates running off with one of my colonists.  It's manhunter Capybaras.

In short, what I really hope the conversation will turn to at some point in the near future is an emphasis on those elements: a new version of a shock lance that's never been seen before, a new animal that does something weird, new gameplay elements that haven't been seen before which will make a player curse and laugh at the same time...and in equal measure with the attention that re-vamped combat is currently receiving. 

Thanks for listening and reading.

I just want to add that I completely disagree with this notion. If you want easier combat, just lower the difficulty. That is it.
If you leave in those cheesy tactics, many people feel like they should use them. They are fun. For a while. But then it becomes a boring chore. It essentially removes element of a game, and instead add something you have to do every time, just to render one part of the game pointless.

Pawns getting hurt and scarred in different (weird, funny, etc.) ways is part of the game. Losing is part of the game. If you want to play the game in a different fashion (render combat pointless) just mod it out. Completed game should have all of its elements meaningful.

Even more caravan stuff (yes, I've been doing some caravaning of late, new quests seem to show up, some of them are even somewhat worth doing):

When caravan creation is interrupted and pawn (and pack animals) have items on them, these items will not show as available to be taken with the caravan, until they are dropped on the ground (any storage area).
This is kinda annoying when you forget to add an item to the caravan, and now you have to wait until everything is unpacked, only to pack it again.
I think making all items visible (including those pawns are carrying, but not gear they wear) would help with this, maybe (?).

More caravan stuff:

After caravan comes back to town, pawns could get back to beds they were assigned to before they left. It is kinda bothersome when it comes to couples, but also messes up all setups of greedy pawns, and so on.

Caravan notes:

There needs to be a way of setting priorities who is getting healed first, or simply fixed "smart" priorities.

People who are literally dying (bleeding) or slowly dying (infections) needs to have highest priority here over, say, pack animals and whatnot. This process should also be a little faster, imo (especially when there are 4 doctors in the caravan for total of 7 people in it).

Why? I literally had to stop next to a other colony to "settle" to get my pawn healed, because he has 3 hours to live. This obviously decreased faction status, which doesn't make much sense, since I simply tried to mend my dying pawn (which also left empty ruins of my "colony" there).

Plate armors are a great addition, imo. Bridges the giant gap between technological levels we had - in most colonies I simply skipped most armor until I got power armors. Now they are harder to make, but there is also an alternative.

Wooden plate especially - easy to make, resources are usually available. But there is one problem, still - usually.

I still think that once you make some sort of armor, there should be a way of (at least partially) repairing it. Thematic reasons also apply here, too - in situations where resources are scarce, you'd make some sort of make-shift repairs to your armor (akin to armors seen in post-apo games like Fallout 1/2), so that it still offers you protection and doesn't fall apart.
Making whole new armor and throwing old one away seems kinda counter intuitive in such situation.
Thematic reasons aside, I think it would give people more incentive to make there armors, as they could be used for longer (but not repaired indefinitely, as it also doesn't make sense, both thematically and mechanically - some sort of repair limit, say 4-5 full durability values of new armor until it stops being repairable).

Played a longer session yesterday, fiddled with autocannons a little bit more. Seems it was simply me misunderstanding them at first - they actually work quite well if they are placed with their minimum range in mind. The process of working out their weakness is pretty interesting too. That said, I think the point-blank-turret-block (aka they can't hit targets that are in melee range) could make them even-less just place it and forget about it.

They are still pretty expensive, but I guess that is balanced given they enable you to have less people defending given spot. Feels like a good trade-off and choice to make.

About doors change - I think it is a good change. You can literally kick a wooden door out. They shouldn't be that much of a blockage for attackers. This also means there is more incentive to use stone doors in crucial positions (more choice = more fun, at least for me), at cost of slower movement.
This also makes placing doors a more strategical - you can't just put them everywhere so that pawns move easily, because they can also be weak points.

Hmmm, maybe not all that useful feedback, haven't done all that much playing yet.

I'm not using killboxes at all and I don't find new autocannon that much useful. It uses a lot of energy and in most cases becomes useless quite quickly. For how much it costs it does very little, at least in the uses cases I've had so far.
I should probably do a little bit more.
My main problem with this turret is how easy it is to overwhelm - one guy with shield belt can get rid of such turret.

So while I like that melee now locks in melee combat, I'm unsure if turrets new similar treatment. Maybe if you get to point-blank range it makes sense, but I think that autocannon's minimal range is too big now. I'd say make all turrets unable to shoot targets that are in point-blank range. This way they still cannot defend on their own, but won't be as easily overwhelmed.
Maybe what we need is some sort of barbed wire that slows down pawns (maybe hurt them a little, dunno) but don't provide cover? Sand bags feel kinda pointless in that regard, because while they slow down advance, they also provide cover.

Quests still seem to be underwhelming. The amount of food needed to travel is usually worth more than rewards for doing it. I don't really find myself excited about quests coming in, don't really do all that much of them.

Capturing prisoners on the field (attacking bases or random encounters) is still clunky and kinda unreliable.
I think we should be able to take prisoners without any room - just tie them down and drag along with you. Be it in the field or in your base. Room requirement makes it kinda weird.

Using sleeping bags while in the field is kinda clunky - you have to unpack them (which includes finding them on whoever is carrying them), order pawns to place them and only then they are useful. Not sure if it is worth to implement a separate system of using them, but it feels kinda clunky (side note: not sure if that is a thing, but do pawns get better sleep if you have sleeping bags with you?)

My idea on the matter is if you type a message and you think it might be taken in a hostile manner, just don't post it please. We're all friends here whether its from a love of the game, an enjoyment of Tynan's and Ludeon's efforts, or some random mod with 10k users and all the horrific ideas they come up with. If you see an opinion you don't like why not try either ignoring it and continuing on with the conversation without including it? Can't begin to tell you how often we get hailed to come stop slapfights, and most times if I have to get involved both parties are wrong.

This forum is our home, we all cherish it differently but at the end of the day this is one of the few forums that hasn't devolved into a massive cesspit. Staff can't take credit for that only as our userbase is flourishing and the folks around us tend to police themselves, still the odd bad apple but with the reports being made we're usually quick to rush in and take care of business.

I'd like to respectfully disagree on those. For few reasons.
First of all, if you think that way, there is very little you can say, because nowadays close to everything can be taken personally and/or as a personal attack. That way a lot of critique/responses/thoughts are lost in the process, just because someone might feel like the response is hostile (even if the message isn't directed at them, but their ideas).  I think that intents and attitude are important.
And this brings up (maybe a nitpick, excuse me if it sounds like that) the other point - we're not all friends here. And we don't have to be. But at the same time, there is no reason for us to be antagonizing each other. We're still a community of people who like RimWorld.
My point is - you can dislike somebody (and/or their views), but still value that they have other points of view. Points of view that may help you, if you're attitude is right.
Once you start thinking that everyone are your friends, you start viewing any sign of disagreement (snarky responses or heated discussions) as a personal attack or betrayal. We were friends, how could they do that to me?

Next - you cannot discuss ideas/opinions without addressing someone's ideas/opinions that you disagree with. Discussion is literally a slapfight. Each person is trying to prove that they are right. The point is, what intent and attitude they have - do they want to present their ideas and/or have a discussion or antagonize the other person, because they had some disagreement in the past. I think the latter should be punished - not the former.

Lastly, if you want to have good resource of various opinions and feedback, you more or less have to allow the place to become cesspit. Let people argue, let them get passionate about discussions. Not to a point they start throwing ad hominems, tho. The point you step in is where there is nothing to be gained from such discussions (for example, two people arguing without using real arguments, and instead simply throwing ad hominems at each other).

I gotta admit I have mad respect for Tynan for the attitude he shows towards opinions on forums and I think this is a way of doing things.
For the record, I'm a veteran shitposter of Path of Exile forums. I've seen a lot, I've taken part in quiet a few heated discussions. I love these forums just because staff only steps in when people get really personal (for no good reason). I think this is what Tynan is aiming for, and given the amount of activity these forums have, I think that it is good decision.

Ps. I disagree with you here, but I still respect that you're doing work as a staff member.

[This might end in a very annoying fighting, which puts you more into hunting those skunky dudes, who are digging through your base.]

I don't know if i want raiders to destroy my walls everytime they feel threatened.
This might end in a very annoying fighting, which puts you more into hunting those skunky dudes, who are digging through your base.

I actually like the idea of learning. Same like traps, are remembered by raiders, dangerous spots should be remembered.
Raiders behaviour could split in a third behaviour. Now we have attacking and fleeding. I'd split that into scout, fight, flee:
When they arrive on the map, theyre all in a scouting mode, meaning they head for player structure, looking for things to kill or steal, do not shot on sight(they gather first and attack then). When somebody dies, they react and change tactics and direction.
When they get attacked a lot, or they did find a valuable treasure, they switch to battle mode. Now they attack offensivley, destroy walls and furniture, set fire and steal things.


Beyond all that, I'd really love to see another behaviour I mentioned already in another thread:
Whenever raider feel like they cannot attack a base effectively, one raider leaves the map. After he leaves 1-3 mortar shells are launched from off map, attacking outer walls.
When the attacking situation has changed, they attack, else another one leaves, up until 50% have left. If there's still no effect, they surrender or attack despite their chances.

1. That is the point - if they cannot attack from front, they should dig around. Think what you'd do. Would you go front and get killed, or group up in one spot and start digging your way in?
Yes, this will mean you'd have to leave your fort and fight them.
2. Errrr, what? Why would they leave if they are supposed to siege you? You win because they don't feel like attacking you? Lol. Also - mountain base. Mortars do nothing.

Building from stone takes a while, therefore game keep flowing for quite a while.

That said, there could be a never-ending scenario in which you can't really win, but only survive for as long as possible. I always feel like I don't want to win, but to keep on going until something challenging happens. I mean, I like it when my fully built up colony gets struck by drop-pod robot assault. :-2

I don't quite understand your reasoning. Why do you want it so bad on GOG, exactly? DRM free? You can just buy it here and get it DRM free. And you'll still be getting Steam key.

So, you essentially want to make the game easier/boring?
I wonder - what can go wrong?
Seriously. If you think that armor is useless, trying walking around without any armor. Sure, there are accidents that may look silly (aka limbs flying off), but I'd say otherwise game would be simply boring.
What is fun in mowing down helpless hordes of weaklings when you're 100% sure nothing happen to you? If this is your idea of fun, you may as well get mods on. The general consensus is that overcoming difficulties (this includes random accidents) is fun.

The only problem I have with armor is the inability to maintain it. It getting destroyed over time/with hits is fine (because it requires resource management and so on), being unable to repair existing ones (instead of building new ones) is kinda dumb.

Its RimWorld. For anything that cannot do work, the only answer is:
Hats and meat.

Hey, folks-

I've got 600+ hours into the Vanilla game, and I'm not sure I understand how the Stealth ranking on caravans works.  Is a lower number more stealthy, or more likely to get yourself ambushed? 

Right now I'm running a 2-man caravan with a stealth ranking of "1", but I'm carrying an absolute ton of silver with me (6000+), 2 alpacas, 2 wolves, 2 cobras, and both my pawns are in full Power Armor.

Previous caravans have been 6 pawns in Power Armor, about 8 Muffalos, 6 wolves, an attack Bear, and 2 cobras...but the stuff they were carrying were nothing more than wood, and bedrolls to set up a forward base of attack.  These caravans came in with a Stealth ranking of around 5.5 in previous attempts, with an occasional ambush.

I did an exhaustive search pretty much everywhere, and couldn't find any meaningful information on the topic, so any insight that you have would be appreciated...I'm tempted to believe that the lower number is stealthier, but the fact that my 2-man caravan is carrying a major amount of silver makes me wonder.

Thanks for any help!

Well, it makes sense if you think about it. How can raiders tell what you are carrying?
Also, it is way easier to hide and to avoid being spotted in few people than running a whole caravan full of pack animals and whatnot.