Messages

It's been a while since i messed with rimworld, for some reason i remember animals logic being the mod i used that made alpaca's milkable and let all egg laying animals lay eggs with or without fertilization or being part of the colony or am i thinking of another mod?

Nope. It was something else.

Not from a mod. Animals being trained are doing their business between training sessions, it is not something new.

Naming on birth/tame is a vanilla function for some animals, mostly canines.

Any ideas on how I can stifle it? 
Sorry for pestering you... you seemed liked the logic choice to ask...
If it can't be done, it can't be done.

cheers.

You can make a simple XML mod. As far as I remember, you need to set nameOnTameChance to 0.

Naming on birth/tame is a vanilla function for some animals, mostly canines.

Animals Logic, Carbon and My Little Planet are updated for B19.

Warning: only a bare minimum of testing is done.

Animals Logic changes:

Removed (now vanilla):

• Adds rename button for animals.
  
• Tags bonded and pregnant animals in caravan and trade interfaces.
  
• Pack-able animals without a load will be considered a sellable chattel by the caravans.
  
• Unforbids slaughtered animals.
  
• When allowed zone is changed animals react immediately instead of after the end of the current task.
  
• Minor starvation (below 60%) cannot cause miscarrying.
  
• Pet type animals (all which can be starting pet) and bonded animals do not disturb sleep.
  
• (Optional, default off) Mitigates wildness penalty for training (but not taming) animals with high wildness.
  
• (Optional) Animals (wind included) have greater chance to fight back when attacked in melee
  
  Added:
  
• (Optional) Configurable animal hauling efficiency.
  
• (Optional) Configurable tameness decay threshold.
  
• (Optional) Configurable training decay speed.

Blongo, please review rule 2 in the community rules. This is a friendly warning. I want to hear negative opinions but there's no reason to express yourself that way.

It would also be good if you have some indication of what you're referring to. Is it just this one aspect of managing colonist with large numbers of bionic parts? Or is there any other specific experience you're thinking of?

I'm starting to think that rule 2 warnings are RNG distributed on negative feedback, since I don't see anything like that in his post. Unless that rule means that any show of emotions is a crime.

Colonists are really moody, freaking out on all sorts of random things, easily beginning tantrum spirals. 1.0 added more negative debuffs, barely adding anything positive to offset them. I just can't believe that they are human beings at the moment. And when some arrogant model would rather eat raw meat than try to cook it or supersoldier would better bleed out than try to treat a wound - it is not helping.

P.S.: No more Jensens? Finally.

Explosive IEDs test (again 30 pawns each test):

Pirates:
B18: 1.8 per pirate. Two pawns on go-juice were too fast for them and escaped.
1.0: 2 per pirate.

Scythers:
B18: 2.8 per scyther. Worse than deadfalls, actually.
1.0: 3.3 per scyther. ≈10% chance to survive 5 IEDs.

Centipedes:
B18: IDK. A corridor with 6 IEDs only enough to stop 1 out of 10 dealing 50-70% damage each other.
1.0: They just shrug it off, 30-50% damage each from a corridor with 5 IEDs.

Overall in 1.0 they are weaker for one target, but they have +1 radius. No more component cost would mean a lot in B18, components in 1.0 are also cheaper. Still, makes them more viable. And they really are more cost-efficient than deadfalls even without AoE.

Out of curiosity - tests of granite deadfalls in 0.18. 30 tests each.

Pirates: ≈3 traps per pirate. Quite large spread, from 1 to 5, but overall in each set of 10 spread is 27-33.
Scythers: ≈2.6 traps per scyther.
Centipedes: My 15 trap setup was a bit too short, but was able to stop them 25 times of 30.

Results: their performance against pirates from B18 and current 1.0 is close. Sure, current 1.0 is a bit more consistent, with less chance to one-shot and less chance to deal little to no damage, but generally it is similair. Against scythers though traps are notably worse now. What we have as dry net? One use, half cost, forced spacing, and metal traps are not really affordable anymore.

Steel trap in B18:
Pirates: ≈2.2 traps per pirate
Scythers: ≈2.3 traps per scyther
Centipedes: ≈7 traps per one (approximation, too lazy to actually count)

Awesome. IEDs were buffed somewhat too since nobody used them, give those a try, I'd love to hear how it works out.

I like how IEDs are like fine meals and traps are like simple meals.

Wait, but fine meals are more expensive than simple meals, and IEDs are cheaper than deadfalls (explosive IED - 40 silver stuff cost, wooden deadfall - 50 silver stuff cost, steel deadfall - 76 silver stuff cost).

So what you're saying is I should add a lavish trap.

Can I get my nutrient paste trap please?

Glad to say Oblitus' information is false. The traps are cheaper, hit more consistently, and do much, much more damage against all targets, and can be reinstalled, with the downside that they're used once. Of course armor does have an effect.

We are still tuning them of course, so if you ever actually use some in game and have some feedback based on that please post it!

So far, from streamers and actual play reports, people seem to find them useful.

Useful, yes, but still it's a nerf. They are okay in forest biomes, when you have more wood than you can ever use, but when resources are more scarce reusability easily beats all damage buffs. It takes ≈2 stone traps to take down pirate and ≈3 stone traps to take down a scyther, and centipede is as well as immune to them - at least they can come through corridor with 11 of them 15 times out of 15. And this is a ton of stone.

Just noticed on a new colonie that traps are destroyed after being sprung. Anyone has seen this before, is there a change that they are destroyed or is it always?

I like placing traps on strategic points to thin out the raiders, but if a large raid means a large cost of steel/platesteel/etc I will start using traps less.

It seems that defending a base keeps getting more difficult with the more varied raids (which I like), and very expensive with the barrel changes and now also the rebuilding traps. A turret killbox supported by pawns might not be efficient anymore (which I would not like since I usually keep my colonist count low).

Fresh nerf. They are cheaper and hit core consistently, but now are weak against armored targets and just disappear after one use.

You still need to defeat sappers, sieges, and drop pod raids without it.

If you can, then you probably don't need it vs normal raids which are easier.  It can save time though.

My experience is based on v18 and happy if it has been improved but in v18 drop pod raids were very rare and both sappers and sieges were easily reduced to a regular raid by a few snipers in armor. Siege has always been more of a free goodies delivery than a threat to me: they are just chilling out why you snipe them, once weakened they rush to collectively commit suicide in killbox and then you are left with all the free stuff.

1.0 drop pods are very common, sappers can't be reduced to normal raids (another one would become sapper if current dies), and sieges are not that eager to forfeit mortars after one loss.

1.0 came with a lot of intentionally over-done balance changes. This is a classic balancing technique where we push a change too far on purpose to find the boundaries where it breaks the game or creates negative effects. It's something I learned from the senior designers when I was working on BioShock Infinite. It works well, as a design method, but of course it makes the game worse in the short term, until those experiments are harvested and wrapped up.

I've understood it instantly, I just couldn't believe that you'll use it on this stage honestly expecting it to work. This is a good method, but it has major issues if applied here and now.

First, it is iterative. You need a long enough cycle of approximations to find the best point. And it grows exponentially with game complexity. Bioshock Infinite as a game (sans story part) is a railed B-class shooter with static world. Rimworld is a sim full of complex, intertwining mechanics that are RNG-heavy and change with game progression.

Second, one ingame year is >16 real time hours. Sure, you can speed it up, but not much, and you have a lot of slowdowns, especially early on, when you have to micro a lot. So one average ingame year is something like 10 real time hours and endgame section is twenty-four hours away. With daily update cycle, even abusing met wake-up hard won't allow one really experience endgame and provide fresh, relevant feedback. BSI is segmented and each level can be tested independently with little variances from rudimentary leveling system and poor weapon varience.

Third, how much players are providing feedback here? Several dozens? They are not representative for a million sized player base. They are hardcore veterans who are happily killing themselves on NB and declaring any tactics that can allow you to somewhat reliably survive first year OP.

Is everything all that bad? No, it would work with several more public betas. But next public version is announced to be final release. And now it looks like a perfect recipe for disaster.

The only way to speed up development would be to equalize everything, nerfing any mechanics that stands away. It makes process much faster, but it kills game variety, making everything equally boring. And that is exactly what is happening so far. Bioshock can go for it because game is just a wrapper for an awesome pre-made story. But Rimworld is supposed to make own stories. Can boring game make fun stories?

Sure, you can always go Bethesda-"we'll let modders fix this for us"-way, and it would work thanks for good modding support, but don't you want to make vanilla interesting too?

This move only made sense should you want to go for genre change from colony sim to disaster sim that is not even supposed to have any end-game. But if this is not the case - I have no idea how you plan to pull it off.

I've seen this characterization that "Every change made the game harder" before and I find it really strange since it's so obviously not true. Tons of things have been made easier and more beneficial to the player, tons of new options and pathways to success have been opened up, more strategies are viable

Game is just watered down now. I start the game and don't see a point to to do anything - I know that I would be punished for any action in long term. Build turrets and traps? Massive investment and upkeep, limited usefullness. Walls? They are pointless against any serious threat and are only good to exploit AI. Shooters? Ranged combat is just broken to make melee viable. Melee? Melee pawn would spend its life in a hospital, accumulating traumas and ending up as whiny leprous Jensen. Animals? They are micro-heavy expendables with massive upkeep. I look at patchnotes and see small buffs here and there, but none of them are anywhere around pathway to success.

Why? Note that "long-term," it is the keyword. Early game is more or less okay. First year or two. But what after? And After you find yourself sitting on a hoard of everything only to realize that nothing of it matters and you have no more progression available and is even more vulnerable than you was in early game and your best move is to start new game.

I'm not saying it is not possible to survive or anything like that. But when game is in stasis of eternal struggle it is as fun as y=x graph. When you know that y=x for every y, it is does not matter what x is.

And I'm not even touching whole "RNG-fest" aspect.

Fixed. Also updated Animals Logic: zone awareness is now fixed in vanilla.

Also, some unofficial updates (no future support warranty)

[attachment deleted due to age]