Fog of war?

[NoImageAvailable]

That's just the vision part.

Have you considered the problems with path finding algorithms?
Hauling would have to be completely reworked for one thing.
Scouting behaviour would have to be implemented.

I think the performance would take a massive hit from the constant visibility checks, especially since every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour and therefore for the prioritization calculation.

I'm sure there are other factors I haven't considered.

IMHO FoW could be interesting but it is in no way easy to implement properly.

Path finding wouldn't have to change much, nor would hauling. They would still operate as they are except in the cases that an object somehow moved/was destroyed. Rather than changing course immediately as is the case now it is changed when the object's former location comes into view. The standard three-state FoW shows things like buildings in their last observed state and only updates once it comes into view again, I don't see why the same could not apply here.

The only thing that would need a major rework I think would be hunting. Since animals change their locations constantly they could have moved a fair distance from their last known position. A solution could be to make it a bill at the butchers table "Hunt animal" and then the hunter goes out looking for animals.

For scouting, we already have timetables. Simply add another option "patrol" during which a colonist will go around the edges of the homezone (or, if you want to put in extra effort make a new patrol zone so it can be better customized).

I'm not sure what you mean by "every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour". You don't need to calculate vision 60 times a second nor is it needed for almost every behaviour. The performance would take a hit, sure but I don't think it would be significantly bigger than say, the new needs system adding several new variables to track for each pawn.

[Regret]

That's just the vision part.

Have you considered the problems with path finding algorithms?
Hauling would have to be completely reworked for one thing.
Scouting behaviour would have to be implemented.

I think the performance would take a massive hit from the constant visibility checks, especially since every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour and therefore for the prioritization calculation.

I'm sure there are other factors I haven't considered.

IMHO FoW could be interesting but it is in no way easy to implement properly.

Path finding wouldn't have to change much, nor would hauling. They would still operate as they are except in the cases that an object somehow moved/was destroyed. Rather than changing course immediately as is the case now it is changed when the object's former location comes into view. The standard three-state FoW shows things like buildings in their last observed state and only updates once it comes into view again, I don't see why the same could not apply here.

The only thing that would need a major rework I think would be hunting. Since animals change their locations constantly they could have moved a fair distance from their last known position. A solution could be to make it a bill at the butchers table "Hunt animal" and then the hunter goes out looking for animals.

For scouting, we already have timetables. Simply add another option "patrol" during which a colonist will go around the edges of the homezone (or, if you want to put in extra effort make a new patrol zone so it can be better customized).

I'm not sure what you mean by "every tick changes a variable that is used for almost every behaviour". You don't need to calculate vision 60 times a second nor is it needed for almost every behaviour. The performance would take a hit, sure but I don't think it would be significantly bigger than say, the new needs system adding several new variables to track for each pawn.

Hauler behaviour is based on what is haulable, a hauler would only haul things that he thinks are there, that means that everytime a part of the map is explored the hauler needs to recalculate whether he needs to haul or not.

The part I bolded would help quite a bit with the performance, I was thinking about this quite differently.

What the end result for performance would be is unknown to me, it's something to keep an eye on of course.

[Kegereneku]

NoImageAvailable,

I think you'll understand if I don't answer by quoting. As pointed out by the moderator if we keep doing so it can only get unbearable. So please believe that I'm honestly addressing what I see as our points of disagreement, simply in a more global manner.
Plus it seem clear that we are both over-interpreting each other quotes out of context (or too specific context) ... and venting passive aggressive personal attack under the resulting irritation.

On the "suspense" subject, I would like to know what you think of Alfred Hitchcock's opinion about the common confusion of suspense with surprise.
To me, this is very relevant to our disagreement movie or game.
Before the Event you didn't know the raid's size and weaponry. Knowing you are currently 'in a Raid Event' make it slightly more pressing, but only seeing the full scale and weaponry of the raid force make you say "holy shit".
Reducing the distance at which you become aware don't make a difference.

- Sub point "Chess"
The objective of my Chess analogy was to show that you definitively achieve uncertainty & tension through sheer number of piece  and possibility. Then I meant to say that by reducing the field of vision the player simply consider less parameters at once... unless you build mechanic to fight off the FoW precisely to retrieve the parameters needed for strategy (leading back to scout-induced omniscience). Hence "the only point of FoW is to fight the FoW"

On the gameplay aspect,  (EDIT) How 'strategic' do you think FoW will make RW ?  (I meant 'wargame' as the RTS style game yes) A few here clearly want a wargame, but in different way...not always compatible.
So : Where do you put your lower and upper limit yourself ?
Me, I consider that Rimworld's particular use of Events/StorytellerAI, small team combat, macro-management and deeper characterization are definite indicators that the game scope is meant for small-scale survival with occasional home-defense. Not tracking/defeating permanent threats (or longer than, the say, 10 days long siege), nor for constant information-warfare, and definitely not for 'Colony versus Colony'.
So my lower limit is 0 scout and upper limit "as many as events require".

On the storytelling aspect, you won't deny that the point of having user-interaction is to allow us to shape our game experience, and that our choices is what make a cannibal-colony different from a paradise resort or a simple survivor-camp who escape into space.
So I think our point of contention is whether or not having FoW would harms the wide range of play-style allowed as 'normal' by the Storyteller. Keeping in mind the balance requirement : Requiring (as opposite to making occasionally useful) to have even 1 or 2 constant Patrol/scout is no small change for a game balanced around 3 to 10 colonists.

- Subpoint scout/patrol&balance :
My answer on this are :
1) Many don't want to be forced to need a near-permanent scout/patrol, to survive or just to see. They like the omniscience.
2) If you make the gameplay require a full-time scout/patrol, you need to balance the game so that feeding him is not penalizing since it's 'normal'. You imply that we could 'stay blind' but sincerely we both know you (and some other FoW proponent) want more obligation to scout than that.
3) Distance&vision balance, because walking speed are mostly equal those are critical factor, the balance will be touchy

I suggest an experiment : Take a screenshot Zoomed-out, Put a colonist at the furthest distance you imagine on patrolling, paint a circle around what you want his field of vision(blue) sniper(red) to be. It should give a basis to judge FoW on. From here you could expend the experiment by timing how far one can keep a zone "secured" ...etc
I won't do myself because I'm biasedI do not share the belief that a permanent OR slowly-regenerating Fog will lead to improvement. However, in the hope of refuting some baseless accusation, I'll suggest more Events based on dissimulation-of-information and that are truly not "classic FoW" :

Idea 1 : Unaffiliated 'visitor' are traveling through the map. they seem to be carrying something. You could send someone to know what, or arrest them, but they might become hostile.
Idea 2 : Unaffiliated 'visitor' are coming near your base, you need to talk/arrest them to know if they are truly neutral, they can randomly become hostile /grab something high-value and run away.
Idea 3 : Stop notifying where the mad animal(s) is. It should give you enough incentive to draft one/more colonist put them as guard and wait until they get attacked.
Idea 4 : An actual thick fog : Pawn/raider path-finding get erratic if not in brightly lit zone or destination too far. Cyborg/mech less affected.
Idea 5 : Outside exploration, you don't know what you'll find, you'll need a prepared team, there might be shrouded area until you enter AND you can apply different time rules if needed for balance.

Lastly, yes, I'm dropping the Shrine subject. I've said all I though pertinent about it and it was not leading us anywhere (too context specific).

[Darth Fool]

I think there is an ongoing assumption amongst those arguing anti-fog of war that nothing else would end up changing with the introducing of FoW.  Yes, there are new things that need to be balanced with FoW (just as with any new mechanic). 

For example, events.  Currently we do have a fog of war that is effectively the edge of the map that fogs are knowledge of the occurrence of events.  As a matter of computational convenience we don't make events until they are known, but perceived from the perspective of FoW it looks different: An event happens, say raiders decide to launch pods at us.  we know nothing about an event until it enters are field of view, which is currently the whole map(with a few exceptions).  When it does enter our field of view, we know everything.  Adding in a more refined FoW allows for an in between phase, where we know that something has happened ... because of wolves howling, observing drop pods falling in the distance, or the sound of gunfire ... but we don't know exactly what has happened. 

Keg: this goes to your question of suspense versus surprise.  All we have now is surprise, because currently we are in a state of no knowledge followed by SURPISE, an event has happened and by the way here is everything you might want to know immediately after, or at least as soon as you like.  For an event to really create suspense, and not just surprise, it is necessary to provide bits of information, hints, that build up to the complete picture so that each bit of information adds to the sense of foreboding, dread, terror, or joy, until finally at last complete knowledge is attained and you can transition to the denouement.

Addressing another point, scouting.  It has been implied that one needs to scout out the whole map all the time and dedicate an individual to doing this.  Well, if you have a hunter, that will probably happen anyways, but it is far from clear that it would be necessary.  Frankly, the only reason I am generally interested in far parts of the map where my colonists aren't is if I know that there is something there, say from an event (SURPRISE!).  Most of the time, the area that will need to be scouted will naturally be scouted via farming or other activities, with occasional scouting parties when hints of events (Suspense!) draw one out.

Finally, it seems obvious that technology research will enable one to expand one's view either by building hidden cameras from scyther parts, infrared sensors, drones, or geostationary spy satellites.  The choice between pursuing such technologies v. other technologies that might increase productivity or joy seems to me like a reasonable thing to make a player choose between.

[Anduin1357]

If there is one thing this thread tells me, Keg is a minority who is resisting because he cannot give up his omniscience.

Again, this is not about how FoW might compare with normal gameplay so much as how it may change your gameplay.

All of which could be resolved with one tickbox and a slider. Seriously.

[Turps]

Epic idea!... We could call the new game "FogWorld" 

[puddlejumper448]

I'm going to post here, but it's a 6 page thread full of huge responses, so forgive me if what I say has already been said, I just glanced over posts that seemed to get quoted a lot. The first thing I want to mention is everyone seems to be saying "omniscience" a lot like that's what this game has, but with the exception of places behind mountains, there is no omniscience in this game. The standard map is 250x250 sqaures, which assuming a square is 2-feet x 2-feet (based on a person taking one square and a standard 5x5 room being 10 ft x 10 ft, which is close to normal) is only 500 feet x 500 feet big (close to 150m x 150m for metric people). now assuming you build in close to the center, that leaves 250 feet (~76m) to see the end of the map, not even the length of a football field, its like you are saying you are omniscient every time you go to a football game and sit at one end of the stadium. FoW would be pointless in this game simply because every time you step outside of your base you see the whole map

In my opinion, and I could be over seeing something, with the above statement in mind FoW brings absolutely nothing to the table, positive nor negative, because if you ever needed to find something outside of your walls you just walk out and see everything. If it was made in some kind of you can see everything in front of you (easily to the edge of the map no matter what size) but nothing behind you, you would have to adjust to constantly changing fov angles based on what direction every pawn is looking, and it would probably kill performance, especially on lower end machines

[TLHeart]

If there is one thing this thread tells me, Keg is a minority who is resisting because he cannot give up his omniscience.

Again, this is not about how FoW might compare with normal gameplay so much as how it may change your gameplay.

All of which could be resolved with one tickbox and a slider. Seriously.

no keg is not in the minority. I don't want tynan wasting programming time and balance time on useless fow. with the size of maps, it is not needed period. A simple slider would not solve it, as tynan would have to spend MONTHS doing the programming, just to implement something that does NOT fit with the original back story, or the basis of the game.

[Anduin1357]

Firstly, you can go give us some HARD FACTS to prove why Keg and some guy like you are always arguing against FoW, claiming that Tynan would take months to program FoW and balance it and support your allegations that this suggestion does not fit the game in any sane way.

[akiceabear]

I don't want tynan wasting programming time and balance time on useless fow. with the size of maps, it is not needed period. A simple slider would not solve it, as tynan would have to spend MONTHS doing the programming, just to implement something that does NOT fit with the original back story, or the basis of the game.

Tynan estimated 6 days to implement standard fog of war. That likely doesn't include balance. I'm fine if he just implements the toggle option and leaves balance to modders. In vanilla think of it as a hardcore mode.

[Kegereneku]

I think there is an ongoing assumption amongst those arguing anti-fog of war that nothing else would end up changing with the introducing of FoW.  Yes, there are new things that need to be balanced with FoW (just as with any new mechanic). 

No this is precisely because everything lead me to believe it would require a major change of the gameplay (and see better alternative) that I'm criticizing the idea. (defining major change here as : "make the game less interesting for many" and/or "Make Tynan lie on its advertisement").
We can also clearly see that some proponent here won't accept a compromise that isn't said "major change".

About Events : If you look at it more closely, I think you might realize that Events are exactly about reproducing -in a controlled&balanced way- what you would feel only by blind-luck with a FoW. The surprise, of unknown hostile attacking in various way. Is very the point of not telling you before that you will be attacked, how and what you should prepare for.
Making some Events more gradual, do not require a permanent FoW, only more specific Events.
I'm betting that once Tynan make an AI that cannot be beaten without a little thinking, you will appreciate being given time to plan (opposite to being punished for not having scouts).

About suspense : You seem to understand that ultimately tension reach its peak only when you are given full knowledge of the threat. However your argument break down on the same point than other : ultimately you are only delaying when we get aware of how dangerous threat is... and there is no added tension in guerrilla-fighting isolated raiders or just knowing by delayed mean (if at all) how big is the threat.

Lastly, you demonstrate again my point that the only point of FoW is to have to fight the FoW. Aka : "Do we make seeing a part of the management ?" just for the hell of it.
This "sub-management" can easily become an hassle if a game wasn't built for it.

If there is one thing this thread tells me, Keg is a minority who is resisting because he cannot give up his omniscience.

More like I'm the only one who bother providing long counter-argumentation to a bunch of everyday fans who don't seem keen to accept that the subject is much more fundamental, tricky and far-reaching, than what they know/believe.
And you Anduin... let's just say you are toxic. (belittling other for example...)

Considering the length of the thread, and the occasional condescension for implying that FoW wouldn't be a good thing, followed by WALL OF TEXT built out of fabulous claim that FoW will improve everything (with apparently no need for better proof).

No. No, I'm not surprised not a lot of people is arguing against your suggestion. For Starter they are probably all busy enjoying the game and the creativity its omniscience 'enhanced-information-display' allow.
Anyway we are all waiting for a true game developer to take the responsibility and do the actual work.

Firstly, you can go give us some HARD FACTS to prove why Keg and some guy like you are always arguing against FoW, claiming that Tynan would take months to program FoW and balance it and support your allegations that this suggestion does not fit the game in any sane way.

You should be the one giving us "HARD FACTS" that FoW is easy to implement, balance, change nothing fundamentals, will be appreciated by most, will not suffer the same problem that led to its earlier version to be removed and that there is no other way to improve it than "yours way"... if you can agree on what it would be like.

I do actually wish FoW-proponents to find someone capable of making a mods to test the idea and prove me wrong.

[Anduin1357]

The first half of text was something I could not make sense of.

Firstly, I'm not downplaying here, the number of unique users who participated (posted) in this thread has been supportive of the idea (discounting abstentions.) I'm stating the simple truth of observation, not exaggerating it for the sake of belittling Keg.

Define proof, what we have here are soft proof that is based on discussion logic, the "In theory, it works". If you want hard proof;

"I do actually wish FoW-proponents to find someone capable of making a mods to test the idea and prove me wrong."

"No. No, I'm not surprised not a lot of people is arguing against your suggestion. For Starter they are probably all busy enjoying the game and the creativity its omniscience 'enhanced-information-display' allow."

Assumption. Cite your source.

"...and that there is no other way to improve it than "yours way"... if you can agree on what it would be like."

Not if you have derailed this discussion into some messy argument and counter-argument first, 'toxic'.

If you want us to agree, let this be a discussion and split your arguments off to some other thread. This is not your playground to close.

"You should be the one giving us "HARD FACTS" that FoW is easy to implement, balance, change nothing fundamentals, will be appreciated by most"

Why don't I give the recursive answer and say "You should be the one giving us "HARD FACTS" that FoW is hard to implement, balance, change the fundamentals and will not appreciated by most.

Firstly, by vote of the OP, this suggestion is already appreciated by more people than not.
"balance, change the fundamentals"
Secondly, you are currently disrupting this discussion thread so they are moot points.
Thirdly, I paraphrase from someone else that "Tynan would take less than 6 days to program FoW" (Not including balancing).

'I am toxic to this argumentative thread"..."I am trying to restore this thread to a discussion."

[RemingtonRyder]

Balancing FoW could be tricky. Think about it this way - if the other factions also have limited vision (and unless you like cheaty AI, they would need to) then they need to scout your base before they even think about attacking. And that information can be rendered obsolete quite quickly, especially if you know that they're scouting and therefore change the layout.

It's one thing to say that the feature could be added in a relatively short period of time, but quite another to say that it would have full in-game support. It could, based on the necessary additions in the changelog of A11 for traps, but in my opinion you would be looking at some more integration of FoW and a period of testing before you could call it a feature which you would be happy with.

Or, if Tynan were to add support to mod FoW back in, it might take a while longer but you could definitely move things forward with balance at the forefront.

[Frankenbeasley]

Why don't I give the recursive answer and say "You should be the one giving us "HARD FACTS" that FoW is hard to implement, balance, change the fundamentals and will not appreciated by most.

Firstly, by vote of the OP, this suggestion is already appreciated by more people than not.
"balance, change the fundamentals"
Secondly, you are currently disrupting this discussion thread so they are moot points.
Thirdly, I paraphrase from someone else that "Tynan would take less than 6 days to program FoW" (Not including balancing).

I think that surely the burden of proof must always lie in the proponent rather than the opponent, no? If your mechanic says that he's going to fit nitro to your car, without the car being broken or unsuitable for your purposes, it's down to him to prove that this will be a good thing, not for you to prove that it has the potential to explode or destabilise the car in a fundamental way. Similarly, RW without FoW is not currently borked, but the implementation of a major change always has the possibility of producing major issues. I think that those people who are urging caution or who are campaigning against FoW have legitimate concerns and fears.

With regard to the pro/anti split, the top two votes are for those who actively want FoW, the bottom two are for those against, and the middle for those who have no strong feelings either way (who I would count as in the 'not appreciating' figure) which takes the vote currently to 40 who actively want FoW, and 40 who don't actively want it. Even if you take out the moderates, it comes to 40 who actively want it and 31 who really don't want it and 40 to 31 is hardly a massive majority. Personally, I'm in the middle.

[Turps]

Its true Kegereneku's nailed it, like many others I got no time to write epic epic walls of text to point out what already been said to the few who will just disagree with emotion to the point that are losing the true concept of a civil discussion. With what little free time I get to myself I spend playing the game and a little of it here (not enough fer wall texting) I sort of feel its all been said in the first 3 pages of this thread and the original thread.
It is a massive game changer and with the wording of this poll and 80 odd peeps voted so far with what? roughly 10% more are for fog o war. Is that enough to bring it back?? it was in game and was taken out because it didn't really work. Are they any gamers that played that version here to help this thread?
Lots of peeps say they are programmers/designers and that its easy to implement fog o war. Well why not do it? Show everyone how amazing the game will be. Become Fogworld's champion! Peace