Fog of war?

[Kegereneku]

...Sincerely, I think I'll just erase my post, and do it in private.
I went overboard.

[Johnny Masters]

Yeah, you went a little. Actually i read it and was about to post my response so no need to send a PM. Alas, I never meant my detailed response to be regarded as personal jab, nor did i write with that in mind.

Either way, I'm glad we didn't "went through" this. If this gets closed or not lets keep it civil at least.

[Kegereneku]

Don't worry, I didn't take it as such.
Read it carefully, my points against Fog of War are no less valid (and not) personal, I just made the answer much too detailed, and it's repetitive with what I already wrote.
But then again, ideally people understand your point the first time.

[darkrage000]

I'm going to throw in on this here, but if i step on someones foot, be assured that its nothing personal and i accept that everyone has their own opinions...  its not MY fault your all misguided 

Ok, On the Fog of war....
I think its dumb and its always bothered me in RTS games that I can look out my window here and see Pikes Peak Mountain 30 miles away. If i go to Denver I can still see it at 100 miles. For a game to try to tell me that at 500 yards i cant see a hill or a tree or that big assed mountain looming at less than 5 miles? That's just.... dumb.
I can look at the mountain outside my window and see the various dips and spikes with ease, and i know that the dips are probably where i would find a passable area at. To think that I have to walk along the entire mountain to know that there's a dip someplace there is.. well.. dumb.

Now while I might not know where the animals are or if there is someone wandering around on the other side, but i DO know there's a mountain there, right?
Secondly, the colonists were on a passenger liner going past a known planet.. I presume that it had windows or view-ports to see the planet. And they came down in a drop pod which i assume has some visual capability. To think that they all came down and then 'forgot' what they saw is stretching things a bit.

As you can see, logically there is no reason for a FoW environment, simply because they are illogical, treat your colonists like they are morons, and serve no true purpose for the game.

As for 'Limited FoW', which is not being able to see people or animals that aren't in your immediate vicinity, I could give 'some' support for that.
However, If there is a band of 20 enemy pawns setting up launchers across a valley a mile away.. I can SEE them, but the game claims i cant because of 'FoW hiding' even though they are in direct LoS (Line of Sight).
If they are on the other side of a mountain, then sure.. I would see the logic in that.. at least until after the first could rounds fell... But then of course they are on the other side of a mountain so HOW did they know where to aim?

Implemented into RW, i think that FoW would just make the game kinda suck... It would breed more fear and paranoia and make you focus on what you couldn't see rather than on trying to make your colonists survive Landfall.

[NoImageAvailable]

A little story from my most recent colony that I think fits pretty well with this discussion:

Randy had been giving me lots of tribal raids, but very few pirates, and most of them were the melee kind. As a result my colonists had a distinct lack of automatic weaponry. With raid sizes increasing and me not confident in my ability to fend of a group of well-armed pirates I decided to make the acquisition of better weaponry a priority. I figured the space soldiers in cryptosleep caskets usually have some decent weaponry and I should have enough assault rifles and SMGs to take them out, so why not try my luck at it? A breaching party was assembled in front of a nearby structure, with an SMG and assault rifle posted at the flanks while a brawler with energy shield was tasked to deconstruct a wall section, ready to retreat or charge as necessary.

When the wall collapsed however, I didn't find myself under fire: instead the room was filled with half a dozen corpses in various stages of decomposition. A quick inspection of the health tab revealed a large number of bruises from human fists. Furthermore, some of the walls had been damaged. After observing this, I formed a mental image of how something must have woken these people up, only for them to find themselves trapped within the ruin. The desperation must have driven them into madness, attacking each other and cannibalizing the corpses to survive. The last survivor probably tried to claw his way out, punching and scratching at the walls until his nails broke and his fingers were ground down to the bone, only to collapse from the exhaustion. After this realization, my colonists began to carry off the weapons and bodies in grim contemplation of the horror that must've transpired here.

At least, that's what it looked like in my head. Without the area being shrouded by fog, those to paragraphs would've been "Oh hey, those guys are starving to death. I'll just wait and get their weapons as easy loot, awesome!" Personally, I prefer the above.

People here like to throw around the argument that Rimworld is about stories, but what does that mean? It isn't like some CRPG, telling a singular, prefabricated story through NPCs and dialog, Rimworld generates stories by throwing interesting events at the player and letting them react to them. As such the question we should be asking is, does Fog of War allow for more interesting events and/or interaction with them?

Taking the above example I'd say it already does: not knowing that I would get a haul of guns in the immediate future added tension to the raids as I was uncertain whether I would be able to withstand them. Not knowing what I would find inside the ancient structure (and whether I would be able to deal with it without casualties) made it that much more harrowing, turning the whole affair into somewhat of an act of desperation. Puzzling together the fate of the dead drew me into the game world much more than watching it from above ever could (I remember Tynan said in a thread about showing scars on pawns he'd rather let players fill in the details as ingame visuals would inevitably come up short, this is the same principle).

Just looking at currently existing events I can see a lot of potential for FoW. Alphabeavers right now are a complete non-event, my solution is always Jump to Location -> Mark for Hunting -> forget they ever existed. Imagine with FoW a hunter is looking for game as he comes across a vast deforested area. To stop further devastation the player sends him on a search for the source of the disturbance before dealing with them. But what if some stragglers got separated from the main pack? You could be finding errant beavers for months to come. Just by not letting the player see where the beavers are this throwaway event could be transformed into an actual issue to be dealt with. Likewise cargo drops, right now its just Jump to Location -> see a bunch of monkeyhide -> meh, not worth the effort. With FoW it would be a message saying "We detected some drop pods coming down to the north." Is it monkeyhide? Is it gold? Or maybe raiders? Send a scout and find out! Someone mentioned a stampede of Muffalo passing through the area, imagine if suddenly they appeared right outside your colony making their way through.

And lets not forget the massive potential for more interesting raider behaviour: do they simply charge your defenses, potentially blindsiding you as you struggle to get your people into position? Do they send a scout to determine the best avenue of approach (see A11 changes) while potentially alerting you to their presence? Maybe there is a raiding party wandering through the land and it is up to the player to determine whether these guys are here to attack or just passing through?

Not to mention the possibility for additional mechanics playing off of FoW, like camouflaged clothing and binoculars reducing/improving your visibility. Sieges could have a concealed spotter with a Ghillie suit and a sniper rifle sitting somewhere near your base and if you take him out they can only target structures, not colonists. It would even open the door for visitor interaction, if they're happy with your hospitality, they might tell you about that gold vein or the cargo pods full of silver they passed on the way here.

Personally I was kinda meh on the whole idea when I started reading this thread, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea. There is just so much potential for interesting stories to happen that I really hope now this gets implemented at some point. I get that some people are only playing this game to build their pretty bases and would rather have nothing bad ever happen to their colony. The game already gives them an out with Phoebe 5%. For the rest things like raids, dangerous events and losses are an integral part of the game and I don't think game design should let the core suffer over a niche aspect.

[Kegereneku]

At least, that's what it looked like in my head. Without the area being shrouded by fog, those to paragraphs would've been "Oh hey, those guys are starving to death. I'll just wait and get their weapons as easy loot, awesome!" Personally, I prefer the above.

The way I read it you just found free loot that came with skeleton and guessed what could have happened. We could ask Tynan to generate dead body with gun in shrine, that would have saved you time.
If you could have seen inside, had you ignored them (because why not) you would have actually lived these desperate moment and got screenshot to share. OR (supposing they weren't obligatorily hostile) you could have saved them, recruited them and felt like a savior.

In short you'd would have truly created your own story.

As Jhonny did, I believe you are confusing surprise and tension/suspense.
Hiding event would not create more tension, there is only tension/suspense when you see the threat clearly in front of you, know why it is a threat, keep doing everything to counter it, but still hope to survive it.

If you want to be surprised, I insist that asking for Outside-map exploration have more potential.

[Anduin1357]

I have very little to add to this discussion except my keen observations as everyone else already involved in this discussion is embroiled in all the arguing and that I am new to all of this fuss as I did not know just how much people can argue philosophy over a proposed gameplay mechanic that barely takes any logic to flesh out.

It bothers me just how tunnel visioned and stubborn headed @Darkrage000 can be. He nitpicks on some aspects that can obviously be explained away with logical reasoning. It is obvious that you will see a mountain and hills. What is not so obvious is the siege camp on the other side of the map or the raiders coming in to raid you in the cover of night.
Another fail in reasoning is where he postulates that his colonists can see the obvious, they do not have great eyesight and depth of view to distinguish a distant raider or even a hidden pathway in the side of a mountain.


He then assumes like the -snip- that he is that somewhere in Tynan's Rimworld lore states anything like having a viewport at the side of an escape pod. He fails to think that the pod may have had a geological height mapper among other things like Infrared imaging and so on.
...
Why should he see what his colonists don't even...
He then just tries to make FoW look bad through his illogical excuses for reasoning.


====================================================================================


I end my rant and begin my most magical work of laying out the groundwork AFAIK you guys are formulating for.

Fog of War
Where "Observers" is taken to mean "Colonists".

You shall not have any visual awareness of any forces or events that transpires outside the knowledge of your observers.


Corollary, you shall only hear of or otherwise experience indirectly the forces that you have no knowledge of.


You shall be granted knowledge of the surrounding landmarks as part of the advanced emergency survival terrestrial mapping system inherited from your choosing of your landing site.


You will not maintain awareness of any given object given the volatility of the Rimworld and thus, should you leave occupance of your colony or parts thereof and you do not have active systems as to safeguard their permanence in the Rimworld, you shall lose sight of such property and risk whatever unknowns to interact with it.


These clauses sums up all of what I know that has been requested and comprises as the core interactions of this suggested feature.

How Fog of War would benefit the gameplay of Rimworld.

You shall be borne from the very beginning, the fear of the unknown as men of ancient times has ever known.
You shall be weary of what may come through the smoke.
You shall hypothesise that which you fear and to seek out and not continue to fear the ancient scourge.
(Your colonists will now meaningfully pray in their beds for their salvation in their ignorance and fear.)


You shall be psychologically afflicted by this unknown evil, the ghastly explosions that sound from depths unknown to strike your settlement down.


You shall learn to fear what you once scoffed at to be of easy prey;
When the day they outsmart you in your pride and folly;
Your colonists wilter and fade in agony;
Only then, in your wretched sense of twisted rage;
Do you realise the implications of the fog;
Where the effects of war would cane.


But just think of all the adventure you may have, exploring the fear that you would have,
if and when you started to take -
the matter into your own hands.





The atmosphere of a Fog of War is chilling enough, the impact on gameplay, not so much.
But where the unknown is, playstyles will start to change.
The trick here is to invert you to be emergent, causing even dumb AI to seem emergent.
You decide if the next thing you see is a mechanoid army pounding your base or a mechanoid army having fresh been sniped away.


It's your decision if you want a more immersive game or a boring management game with little atmosphere.


... Keg, you -snip-. You just invite more personal attacks.

[NoImageAvailable]

At least, that's what it looked like in my head. Without the area being shrouded by fog, those to paragraphs would've been "Oh hey, those guys are starving to death. I'll just wait and get their weapons as easy loot, awesome!" Personally, I prefer the above.

The way I read it you just found free loot that came with skeleton and guessed what could have happened. We could ask Tynan to generate dead body with gun in shrine, that would have saved you time.
If you could have seen inside, had you ignored them (because why not) you would have actually lived these desperate moment and got screenshot to share. OR (supposing they weren't obligatorily hostile) you could have saved them, recruited them and felt like a savior.

In short you'd would have truly created your own story.

That is not the point though. Its not about being some kind of omnipotent auditor putting little puppets into arbitrary situations, its about seeing an emergent story unfold. Its not about taking some screenshot, its about getting immersed in the game as you picture the situation in your head.

As Jhonny did, I believe you are confusing surprise and tension/suspense.
Hiding event would not create more tension, there is only tension/suspense when you see the threat clearly in front of you, know why it is a threat, keep doing everything to counter it, but still hope to survive it.

If you want to be surprised, I insist that asking for Outside-map exploration have more potential.

I think it is you who doesn't quite grasp the concept of "suspense".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suspense

2. the pleasurable emotion of anticipation and excitement regarding the outcome or climax of a book, film etc.
3. The unpleasant emotion of anxiety or apprehension in an uncertain situation.

Suspense in a story is created when an outcome is a) uncertain and b) important to the audience (usually because they are emotionally invested in the characters). When you're watching the film Serenity and they're making their daring escape from the Reavers you care about the characters and want to see them pull through, which causes said anticipation of the final outcome, when the fate of the crew becomes clear. If someone came in and said "pilot gets harpooned, the rest pulls through fine" that would kinda ruin it, wouldn't it?

To transfer this to my above example, you could say that there was a looming threat through raids that could outgun me and an emotional investment in the well-being of my colonists. The conflict in this particular story stemmed from the necessity of acquiring good firearms. The climax was the breaching of the structure and subsequent looting. Suspense came from two sources:

1) I feared for my colonists' well-being, as I was afraid a raid could wipe them out before they could properly arm themselves. This didn't actually happen, about a month after the incident I got a combat supplier and I bought enough heavy weaponry to be sorted for defense. Had I known this would happen there would have been no suspense as the outcome would have been already known. Likewise if I had known there is an easy supply of guns just around the corner.
2) As I was about to breach the structure, I didn't know what was inside. It could have been guns. It could have been nothing. Or it could have been Mechanoids which would have killed my colonists and destroyed my colony. Again, had I known what was inside there could not have been suspense, the outcome would have been known.

When I finally did the breach it did surprise me, because I did not expect this particular outcome but that does not invalidate the anticipation and suspense that I felt in all the time before that.

Sure, if I had more omniscient knowledge of the map, I might have gotten not only guns but also some prisoners, but it would have deprived me of the entire story. Had I known I would be able to arm my colonists in time there would have been no conflict and therefore no story. I'm sure someone out there gets more enjoyment playing an omnipotent director, spawning guns and pawns and raids on his own whim but I prefer the suspense that comes from not being omniscient.

TL;DR Suspense comes from uncertainty and without it there is no story.

P.S.: Anduin, could you keep it civil please? I get that you might be emotional about some of the posts but I'd rather this turn into a productive discussion rather than another thread lock.

[Tynan]

Yes, a civil discussion would be more enjoyable for everyone, I think. Let's please make efforts to keep on track in that direction.

[Kegereneku]

That is not the point though. Its not about being some kind of omnipotent auditor putting little puppets into arbitrary situations, its about seeing an emergent story unfold. Its not about taking some screenshot, its about getting immersed in the game as you picture the situation in your head.

Omniscience of the player is pretty much the point. You are the spectator/Player.
The inner rules and mechanic are there to put a logic to it, and interaction is needed to give you the ability to shape your story.

Though : Don't believe that I am defending "absolute omniscience".
What I defend is mostly that a "classical FoW" feature wouldn't serve what is Rimworld and that dissimulation of information is best used in precise fashion.

As well, don't make the mistake of believing that Rimworld "lack" a FoW. Displaying the needed information is just as important in video game-design than hiding it.
Knowing less of it don't make a story/game more immersive either.

I think it is you who doesn't quite grasp the concept of "suspense".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suspense
    2. the pleasurable emotion of anticipation and excitement regarding the outcome or climax of a book, film etc.
    3. The unpleasant emotion of anxiety or apprehension in an uncertain situation.

It's pretty much what make my point right.
You can only feel emotion of anticipation regarding outcome you can see. And the uncertainty of getting killed by an hypothetical raid is pointless unless it is a visible threat with too much visible parameters to predict the outcome, not a vague probability.

E.g : When you are watching a match play out. Are you only appreciating the numerical score without seeing the terrain ? Or are you appreciating the realm of possibility from everything you can see ?
This is the whole point of storytelling, making feel real yet uncertain what otherwise wouldn't have a emotional (or physical) existence to you.

Your interpretation with the "Serenity film" case is flawed. You are only considering the timing at which an information is delivered forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the scale and amount of information required to make it play EPIC.
In that famous scene you needed to see the whole environment to understand the threat and follow the action, had you only followed only what one characters see/hear... well you might still have achieved something but it would have been on a much different scale.

What you should be arguing is that FoW focus the storytelling over the character. However, since the colony as a whole is interesting and it would be pointless to ignore the surrounding, Giving information about it prime over dissimulation (which must be used over little details).

EVENTS serve the purpose of bringing the surprise you want. But FoW would only dampen their importance and impede what you can do with them.

About your last example,
Do you realize you might have never found the shrine had a FoW existed ? And that is was 'very convenient' for it to be there, so close.
1) The traders is simply outside the scope of the narration and gameplay balance. Many here would love to have an equally-balanced way to trade with faction.
2) Hiding what is inside that shrine would make it outside the scope too... if we weren't used to the fact that they are alway evil but can give loot/prisoners.

In any case, turning Rimworld into the wargame it can't and shouldn't be won't serve your stated objective, it would only impede the other mechanic that make management/survival crucial.

That's part of why I say that "Outside-Exploration" have more potential than FoW.
- The Shrine could have been outside map.
- The Shrine occupant could have been not evil.
- The Shrine occupant's state (starvation or NOT) could have been made visible with no loss in uncertainty
Basically creating a new scene. (and thereby allowing Structure-based Event that cannot be achieved when you don't know when you'll find it).

To put it in analogy :
- You propose to only see what the Serenity crew can see, not the actual action.
- I say it would be messy, and that suggesting to go outside the spaceship would achieve what I believe to be FoW-proponent wish better.

TL;DR
Fog of War would't improve Storytelling or Immersion, simply make you rely on blind luck to see it or feel it.

ps : Anduin1357, I find your post to come across as a little rude too.

[akiceabear]

TL;DR
Fog of War would't improve Storytelling or Immersion, simply make you rely on blind luck to see it or feel it.(edit) for Kegereneku(/edit)

edited for accuracy. Please don't presume that your view represents all players. I disagree with essentially everything you've posted in this thread. That doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right - just that this issue is almost wholly based on personal preference, not a logical argument.

[Kegereneku]

I recognize that I have abused the affirmative stance, should work on it.
But it doesn't make any arguments that FoW would be "good" for Rimworld any more logical or true.
From my point of view, some of your implication are equally arrogant if not logical fallacy.

[RemingtonRyder]

How about a compromise on fog of war?

You can still see enemies and stuff on the map, but details - like their gear and health - will only be visible while they're in LOS. Additionally, while outside LOS, pawns will only be identified by name and faction.

This would be something that would have to be toggleable off for testing, but for those of you who don't like having abundant information on your enemies, toggling it on means that you will only know things about pawns which can be discerned by an in-LOS colonist. If you want to learn their traits and stats, you'll actually have to imprison them and find out.

As far as items with variable quality and health are concerned i.e. apparel and weapons, pawns with the Hauling job will go exploring for stuff they can scavenge (from the ground or corpses) but won't actually pick something up if it doesn't fit the filters of your existing stockpiles, and will mark it so they know not to go look at that item again unless you make a stockpile for it, the rationale being that if you haven't got a stockpile for it, you don't want the item in the base because it's worthless.

Not sure about that last bit, but it might be nice to selectively strip corpses before burying them or hauling them off somewhere to dessicate far from colonist eyes.

[akiceabear]

A compromise is better than nothing, although if that kind of system is put in place (with a toggle) I'm not sure why there shouldn't be a full fow implemented (as a toggle). In my mind it should be similar to adding another storyteller option, so that those opposed aren't forced into it.

I imagine one reason this isn't done yet is because of the risk of forking the modding community?

[NoImageAvailable]

It's pretty much what make my point right.
You can only feel emotion of anticipation regarding outcome you can see. And the uncertainty of getting killed by an hypothetical raid is pointless unless it is a visible threat with too much visible parameters to predict the outcome, not a vague probability.

I don't know about you, but I (and I daresay over 99% of the player base) are capable of anticipating hypothetical future events. Just because there are no Centipedes banging on your door right this instant doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen and the mere possibility is enough to create a credible threat to be accounted for. The raider threat in my game was a real factor in planning even though it never materialized.

Your interpretation with the "Serenity film" case is flawed. You are only considering the timing at which an information is delivered forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the scale and amount of information required to make it play EPIC.
In that famous scene you needed to see the whole environment to understand the threat and follow the action, had you only followed only what one characters see/hear... well you might still have achieved something but it would have been on a much different scale.

But timing is exactly what this is about. By carefully managing the flow of information you create suspension. It is called pacing and it is Storytelling 101. The point of the example was that by revealing an outcome too early you take the suspension out and there is no more interest in watching the story unfold. There is no point in watching if you know what will happen anyway and its called spoiling for a reason.

Now for Rimworld you have to consider that since it follows a set of rules an outcome can be predicted as soon as the relevant pieces are known. The second the player sees that the cryosleep guys are awake and trapped in a room with no exit he can predict the outcome and the story is over. He might go back to watch them once or twice but the interest is lost. And this is for Fog of War comes into play, it prevents you from seeing things too early and thereby allows for more drawn out stories with actual tension. It essentially prevents the game from spoiling itself.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario where a group of pirates gets wiped out by insane animals and how it would play out with or without FoW:

Without fog, you see the raiders arrive at the edge of the map. You muster your colonists in a defensive position. Then you see the animal insanity event pop up. You jump to location, see that the path intersects with the raiders'. That's it, the story is over, the colonists are undrafted and you go back to managing the colony. You might go back to watch the spectacle here and there but that's it.

With fog, you see a raider scout your defenses. You know there is a raiding party somewhere out there. You put up sentries to spot their approach and muster your defenders in a central location from which they can react quickly. After a while the raiders fail to appear and you get suspicious. They didn't blow a whole in a wall somewhere, did they? A quick perimeter check reveals nothing. You send a scout to see where they are and find a battlefield littered with the corpses of raiders and animals, maybe even catch a glimpse of it still ongoing. Now you know you can let your colonists stand down.

As you can see, both versions share the same scenario yet the second makes for a much more complex, tense and engaging story, simply because information is not immediately relayed to the player.

About your last example,
Do you realize you might have never found the shrine had a FoW existed ? And that is was 'very convenient' for it to be there, so close.
1) The traders is simply outside the scope of the narration and gameplay balance. Many here would love to have an equally-balanced way to trade with faction.
2) Hiding what is inside that shrine would make it outside the scope too... if we weren't used to the fact that they are alway evil but can give loot/prisoners.

You seem to be under this assumption that Fog of War means no information relayed at all. That is plain false. What it does is delay the information, with the exact pacing depending on player interaction ("make your own story" as you said, do you send out scouts or stay oblivious to the outside world?). In my case I would've found the shrine regardless because I would have scouted the area, I just wouldn't have known about it right on arrival. I still found out about the starved sleepers, it just took me until I actually breached and cleared the fog to find out.

In any case, turning Rimworld into the wargame it can't and shouldn't be won't serve your stated objective, it would only impede the other mechanic that make management/survival crucial.

[Citation needed]

TL;DR
Fog of War would't improve Storytelling or Immersion, simply make you rely on blind luck to see it or feel it.

I gave you multiple concrete examples of how Fog of War would directly improve the storytelling with regards to existing events and you haven't addressed a single one of them. I would like to see you actually address these for once as so far your arguments have mostly been beside the point. As for that second part, that is just plain false. FoW isn't blind luck, it is a game mechanic with clearly established rules. You find information precisely when you go out and look for it.

As for Marvin's compromise idea, that seems like too half-baked and irrelevant a mechanic to satisfy anyone. The important information is that there are raiders and where they are, not what color their pants are.