Messages

Spike, I don't worry about the design getting into a mindset of 'defeating' the player.  But stuff like the waffle defense needs to go.  It certainly doesn't contribute to immersion and really does turn the game into tower defense.

Tynan, I certainly trust that you have some tricks up your sleeve, and I can think of a few ways to defeat the waffle defense myself.  But I honestly don't know how anyone can make the AI capable of matching a creative player in general.  I say that not as a lack of confidence in you, but because I've not experienced truly competitive AI before, and I'm talking AAA games with money to throw at the problem.  And this world is more modifiable than most other games out there which means the enemy AI has more dynamic information to deal with.   

The only way that I can see it being a challenge is if they refuse to charge in.  So I'm going to hop on board with GC13 and say that raiders really need to be more risk averse.  If they come up to your base, and theres no way in but through a clear trap. They should just sit and wait.  With no time limit.  Force the player to come to them.  Really, a group of raiders with a couple of RPG's would mess things up real quick.  But that might seem unbalanced.  Nothing particularly clever about the enemy having a bazooka. 

This topic is scaring me.  That 'waffle-defense' looks to me like Combat is broken in the game.  There is no way Tynan, or any developer, is going to get ahead of the players in terms of enemy AI that can compete against player creativity at all in this type of sandbox world.  Eventually, every experienced player is going to be using some form of a Tower-Defense model to completely obliterate raiders.  To even offer some challenge to that type of defense would probably take weeks of AI work.  I don't know what the solution is, but 40 raiders funneling to their death doesn't seem like a lot of fun past the first two or three times. 

If you're referring to a system that divides the map up into smaller sections, he does that already. I think he said they are 17x17 blocks.  Maybe. 

or this topic gets mysteriously deleted..... 

I'm not the censor police.  I'm just making the point that there is a difference between doing what needs doing to survive and having needless cruelty in the game.  Since this is a game where human interactions and emotional states are a large part of the simulation I think it is a valid point point for discussion. 

And there is a big difference between pitched combat and beating a helpless prisoner.  Its the reason why there's a Geneva Convention.  It is deeply ironic, but also indicative of of some of our core human values.   

Not having played the game, is there some problem just selling all of them?  Will traders only buy a small limited number? 

Onto ideas...

Most logical solution to me would be to convert them into a useful material.  Maybe just metal.  Maybe a higher quality metal for a special purpose.  Just need a forge to melt them down.    I think converting excess goods into something useful for the colony should be always be the design-approach of choice. In a survival-colony game people want to feel like they're making it on their own, living off the 'land'.  Not just turning stuff into cash to buy other stuff.  That starts to feel like organized market society, which isn't very survivorly. 

I think weapon degradation/repair is nice too but only if its handled almost automatically since I could see that being pretty tedious.  This mechanic would only really make sense if there is someway to avoid combat/getting guns since degradation is only a threat if your gun supply/raiders are not infinite.  Non-lethal raids make since here.

I like this. Perhaps you could melt them down or cannibalize them for use in a workshop to make higher-quality weapons. Reminds me of the Fallout 3 repair system, which worked very well in solving the classic RPG variant of this problem.

The Fallout 3 method also made it so rare weapons could not be used infinitely, which had a nice balance to it.  It could almost turn it into an 'ammo' parameter without having to get fiddly with actually tracking ammo.  So the gun itself has a lifespan, akin to running out of ammo.  Then you can just throw a pile of old guns into the re-gun-anator and get a few new ones or a single better one. 

Not having played the game, is there some problem just selling all of them?  Will traders only buy a small limited number? 

Onto ideas...

Most logical solution to me would be to convert them into a useful material.  Maybe just metal.  Maybe a higher quality metal for a special purpose.  Just need a forge to melt them down.    I think converting excess goods into something useful for the colony should be always be the design-approach of choice. In a survival-colony game people want to feel like they're making it on their own, living off the 'land'.  Not just turning stuff into cash to buy other stuff.  That starts to feel like organized market society, which isn't very survivorly. 

I think weapon degradation/repair is nice too but only if its handled almost automatically since I could see that being pretty tedious.  This mechanic would only really make sense if there is someway to avoid combat/getting guns since degradation is only a threat if your gun supply/raiders are not infinite.  Non-lethal raids make since here. 

I'm just going to jump in here and say the beatings don't really make sense to me.  How is somewhat 'recruited' through fear.  I could see enslaving someone and using beatings to increase their productivity, but the idea that a person will freely join the colony after a beating, out of fear, doesn't ring true.  And if they're not always under guard or somehow restrained, then they aren't really a slave, they can just run off whenever they want. 

I also personally think that some level of ethics should come into play here.  I mean, I can wrap my head around why slave-trade in some future dystopia would exist and why it may be necessary to employ saves in order to ensure your own survival...  but this:

Long day mining and shooting squirrels? Go beat the prisoners, you should feel better.

I don't personally find this level of role-playing or simulation necessary.  It has large implications.  If this kind of activity is neutral or positive to the other colonists, then the game is making a clear statement about its (lack of)internal ethics.  Now, if said colonist is treated as a the sociopath that he is afterwards, and this has ramifications for himself and the colony, then I don't see it as a problem.  But that seems like it would be a very very complex interaction. 

The Reaver backstory is a little complex to put into place I'd say.  Without the backstory as a part of gameplay...  they're just more disturbing zombies.  You know, because of the flesh-wearing. 

Also, the world isn't solely inspired by firefly so I wouldn't use that as a criteria for distinguishing worthy ideas from not. 

I'm just a bit confused by the anti-biome arguments.  Not that they are against biomes but that they think people don't really understand what they're getting.  A new biome means varied plants/animals that react in different ways with the colonists.  It also means potential climatic effects like freezing/heat-stroke, etc.  Do you think this is not what I would be getting? 

Also, Tynan said in the kickstarter comments that he won't be doing the modules based on direct polling but will be watching comments/polls in the forums and using his best judgment.  So hes not going to add this poll to the kickstarter and with GOOD reason.  If you put a simple little poll at the fingertips of 5000 people who don't care enough to visit the forums, you're just getting spur-of-the-moment opinions that are not really thought through.  And you're also implicitly binding yourself to the results.  You're also designing by consensus which is probably the worst thing any developer could ever do. 

So, basically, this poll is as official as its going to get. 

I haven't really paid attention in any LP's to who live and dies.  If the starting three colonists really are dying out that fast, that's a bit depressing and kinda shakes the foundation of the game for me.  I definitely don't want an endgame in the case.  If there is no story arc that comes to an end by leaving, then everyone should stay there until they can fight no longer.  That's a bit more nihilistic but makes more sense to me.  Life is tough out there

Steve, I can't honestly think of 'any number of reasons' why I would abandon the hope of ever seeing my family again.  I'm not defending the escape ship idea in terms of gameplay, but if these are really just a bunch of civvies on a passenger ship, I don't accept any other desire above returning home. 

Pheanox, is what you said something Tynan has mentioned somewhere else because its news to me. 
From Tynan,

In RimWorld, your colonists are not professional settlers â€" they’re survivors from a crashed passenger liner. They'll be accountants, homemakers, journalists, cooks, nobles, urchins, and soldiers.

It doesn't sound like a bunch of people who were never going to see their families again to me. 

Someone should probably make one of the many endgame-topics that already exist into a sticky thread. 

To me, the only thing that makes any sense for an endgame is an escape ship.  I mean, these people were supposedly on a space cruise-liner.  They have lives and families to get back to.  I can't imagine anything being more important than getting the hell out of there.  Of course, other colonists join with their own sets of priorities, but those original three are the ones who should be in charge of the colony and making the big decisions. 

No AI system (let alone games) has been able to replace the capacity of humans to think in terms of generalisations, exceptions, and creativity.
Any system that does not give people control over the colonists will lead to much heartburn over the "stupid behaviour" of the colonists. .... My two bits is a version of what is already implemented in Rimworld in general - have a default behaviour:
A. Avoid trouble - if a raider comes, run for cover, etc.
But allow micromanagement.
After people do want to / need to win the game.

1. I agree that no AI can compete with the competency of a human.  But instead of seeing that as a reason to give more control to the players, I see it as a reason not to. 
2. I also disagree that both a macro and micro combat system should be available. 

1. Part of the simulation aspect is letting the colonists make their own decisions, have their own priorities and abilities.  That also relates to combat ability.  It just doesn't make sense that for the colonists to have much greater combat ability on a per-colonist level than the raiders.  You can run them around in perfect tactical unity while the enemy Ai is chugging along making the best of the situation.  You'd easily be able to defeat raids with twice as many numbers as yourself, without losing a man.  That just seems fake.I think the game should have a tight meaningful system that involves combat modes for the colonists and areas of operation, but that at the end of the day, the colonists individual movements are not directed.  You are much more likely to lose colonists in this scenario, but that is OK.  You are surviving on the edge of space.  The threat of death is not meaningful if it never comes calling. 

2. There should not be both a macro and micro combat system.  I think this is a given.  The reason is that there is no way to balance the game for both systems simultaneously.  As stated above, in a micro system the player has a huge advantage.  The only way to counter that is by sending in larger raids.  In a macro system, the raids need to be much smaller.  So either the game is balanced towards the micro player, and the macro player struggles through the entire game always seeming overwhelmed.  OR the micro player handily destroys everything that comes at him.  There needs to be one system in place and I think that system should, and will, be one that streamlines the combat experience.   

If I were a raider I straight up wouldn't attack people with defenses. The whole point of raiding is to get something for nothing: you either sneak in and take over without the target being able to mount a resistance, or you overwhelm them with suppressive fire until they back off or you toss a grenade into their face.

It's pretty basic that every colonist is going to be armed, so raiders wouldn't want to fight unless they outnumbered you. Really though, stealth is the big thing: until they can hit us without us seeing it coming, raiders are going to be a joke one way or another. As their strength increases through balancing efforts you'll find the sweet spot between "too weak to be a threat" and "so strong they inflict heavy damage every time" is small, and real raiders would only attack when they can hit "successful attack that wipes the player out" a high percentage of the time.

You made all the good points related to how the raiders seem to fail in the simulation aspect.  The only way it makes 'sense' that raiders would attack when they're likely to be completely wiped out is if they are starving and desperate.  In that case, it doesn't exactly feel good mowing down. 

Also, the small gap you talk about between no-threat and uber-threat could be widened by implementing non-lethal objectives as others have said.   Maybe in that case you could actually lose a good percentage of all our battles, without ever losing your colony.