Uncertainty Veil (Fog of War)

[Johnny Masters]

I would like to recall a bit from Tynan : With a fog of war you cannot see elements of storytelling like a raider attacked by fauna or becoming broken.

TBH that's only half true, with FoW you're only delaying that until you develop ways to counter it. Also, right now, there's nothing much in events and behavior that won't lose its novelty after a few invasions.

I also support that FoW would not change the Killbox problem in any way. Killbox work precisely because AI are extremely predictable. And I'll go on saying that if we had FoW, not being able to count on that anymore could make raider/tribal quite frustrating (and again, I don't want to need guard outside of those clear event)

Losing sense of control is a poignant consequence of FoW indeed (and a feature), but lets remember that should it be implemented everything else would rebalance around it.

For example, it could be a longer time before the raiding begins, you could even postpone it should you continue to remain hidden (or kill scouts), or there could be something like constant threats besides only invasions.

Although its quite fun to build and amass wealth, i think the overall theme of the game is to be under pressure until you manage to escape, and the challenges of managing your survivors until then. I mean, its not an efficiency simulator like sim city or a traditional war rts.
FoW provides more tension while omniscience removes it, but even with FoW you can have a happy-go-lucky rim time with a different AI director and/or challenge rating.

Rimworld will still be rimworld with or without FoW, in the end its about how many people will voice their preferences higher.

[Darth Fool]

I would like to recall a bit from Tynan : With a fog of war you cannot see elements of storytelling like a raider attacked by fauna or becoming broken.

But you would hear the gunfire, and perhaps find a bloody mess that tells the story.  Much of it also depends on the implementation of fog of war.  If a raider becomes dazed and confused, wanders around aimlessly for a while and then leaves and no one is ever near enough to see it, does it matter that you missed that story?  There are certainly cases now where I find meals dropped in the middle of nowhere far from where my base-camp is.  I eventually figured out that this is probably caused by NPCs starting to eat then deciding to leave the area mid meal, but the story of that colony was not made more interesting by seeing such an event.  In fact, I would argue, the mysterious dropped items were more interesting, not less.

I also support that FoW would not change the Killbox problem in any way. Killbox work precisely because AI are extremely predictable. And I'll go on saying that if we had FoW, not being able to count on that anymore could make raider/tribal quite frustrating (and again, I don't want to need guard outside of those clear event)

Well, it might help make it so that you don't need 50 tribals attacking you just to make a raid interesting.  Besides which, presumably one would develop research opportunities and buildings which would eventually ameliorate any FoW issues (in case you really like having to be attacked by an overwhelming hoard).  And is having a group of raiders sneak near your base from the edge of the map in the middle of the night actually more annoying then having them magically appearing in drop pods right on top of you?  I would argue that it is actually less annoying.

[Mathenaut]

So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.

Fog of War wasn't removed because of kill boxes, so no, they wouldn't go away. Fog of War exaggerates the issue of kill boxes, elevating them from an efficient solution to a practically necessary one.

There's alot of hyperbole floating about regarding how not seeing parts of the map will magically add a magnitude of depth and story to the gameplay, especially when immediately following sentences of how Fog of War doesn't impact a major element of gameplay.

If you like FoW for thematic reasons, there's nothing wrong with that. Trying to sell it off as something more than it is doesn't fly much.

[Kegereneku]

To answer both at once :
You would still be missing thing that can be considered good storytelling (you cannot claim that everything you'll miss would have been boring), restricting events around line/zone of sight, not seeing in action the (planned) new combat AI (yes, some of us like admiring the enemy).

I didn't support Rimworld for it to be a predictable and frustrating pseudo strategy game. In fact I support it precisely because combat is limited to how it serve the "harsh survivor settlement life" gameplay while expecting it to be less and less important as other game feature are added, like diplomacy.
I don't see myself as a warcamp-leader as much as a storyteller cooperating or rivaling with the game's one.

"ways to counter FoW" include things I don't <F-word> want.
Needing recon, binocular, camera with control center, putting gards, fail-safe tactic, Killbox, putting turret anywhere, making my peaceful settlement into a fortress, not knowing what the hell is going on, reloading save because of something I couldn't prepare for (like a sniper)...etc

Raiders landing inside my base don't feel anywhere as frustrating as I imagine micromanaging the line of sight of every colonist to make sure they are fighting an enemy they can beat and to know what the enemy is equipped with.

Funnily "countering FoW" also apply to balancing the game to fight-off the very concept (our goal is to see after all) and although I argued myself many time for toned-down raids, if the only way to play decently with FoW was to fight forces that shouldn't count as threatening, what the point ?

And I'm not assuming the worse from it...
Even seeing all the map and items and limiting an uncertainty veil to mask the position of entity (with even stealthiness stat), all with persistent access to any data gathered when in sight... I am still not interested.

If Tynan wanted to retry I said I would give him some trust, but his last answer seem to coincide with why I don't see FoW interesting... for this game.

Ps : someday I'll manage to not write wall of text over shorter arguments.

[akiceabear]

Although its quite fun to build and amass wealth, i think the overall theme of the game is to be under pressure until you manage to escape, and the challenges of managing your survivors until then. I mean, its not an efficiency simulator like sim city or a traditional war rts.
FoW provides more tension while omniscience removes it, but even with FoW you can have a happy-go-lucky rim time with a different AI director and/or challenge rating.

This! My read of Tynan's comments throughout this board is that he intends for this game to be a storyteller, and will make unpopular changes if he thinks it improves the storytelling ability of the game. Some of us feel FoW falls in that category, not just because of the tactical considerations (although they could be nice), but first because of the tension it can add. The popularity of the Darkness mod is one example of this unmet desire.

If you like FoW for thematic reasons, there's nothing wrong with that. Trying to sell it off as something more than it is doesn't fly much.

Arguing that it is a completely nonviable mechanic because it wasn't well implemented/balanced before, or because you simply don't like the idea, also doesn't fly.

I do agree that it would likely require enormous balancing to do right, beyond just the implementation of the system. That's why I suggested a first step might be putting the framework in and encouraging modders to have it, if interested.

[Darth Fool]

So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.

Fog of War wasn't removed because of kill boxes, so no, they wouldn't go away. Fog of War exaggerates the issue of kill boxes, elevating them from an efficient solution to a practically necessary one.

Your devotion to kill boxes being the solution to everything is admirable, but misplaced.  Kill boxes are focused around building a centralized base, whereas dealing with FoW in a non-research-tech way would need to be focused around expanding your base.  It would not eliminate any existing need for a kill box, but neither would it make it more necessary.

[b0rsuk]

Have you seen the movie "Predator" ?

The story The strategy game follows an elite special forces team, on a mission to rescue hostages from guerrilla territory in Central America. Unbeknownst to the group, they are being stalked and hunted by a technologically advanced form of extraterrestrial life, the Predator.

The Predator comes for the thrill of the hunt. He is from a high-tech civilization, and hunts the toughest humans for sport. It doesn't care about conquest, or loot, just trophies.

Rimworld could have an event like that. But it's not possible without fog of war.

[RemingtonRyder]

I think Weeping Angels are a better example of how fog of war adds tension. How long can your colonists go without blinking?

[Mathenaut]

Your devotion to kill boxes...

Not entirely my thing. I don't play years-long colonies, so I don't have issues of 30-large raiders. However, as I realize that this game doesn't revolve around strictly myself and the way I like to play the game, I remain cognizant of how suggestions I make will impact people beyond just myself.

Though, I think someone else put it better, earlier.

Although its quite fun to build and amass wealth, i think the overall theme of the game is to be under pressure until you manage to escape, and the challenges of managing your survivors until then. I mean, its not an efficiency simulator like sim city or a traditional war rts.

Such precious things said.

FoW will only place emphasis on efficiency, because unless you're going to litter the far parts of the map with untold riches, there is precious little point or value in exploring beyond what you need to progress. Just like there isn't horror in RTS games, there wouldn't be horror here. Even the 'tension' doesn't exist because the opponent isn't human, it's an AI, and not seeing it makes it no less predictable, nor the solutions against it any less viable.

FoW only 'adds' things in the most nebulous and reaching sense whereas it's mostly just a pain that doesn't fundamentally change anything otherwise.

By all means, mod it in, but this doesn't belong in core.

[b0rsuk]

I think Weeping Angels are a better example of how fog of war adds tension. How long can your colonists go without blinking?

I haven't seen it, and, in any case, Predator ship event is on my agenda :-). But I seem to remember Tynan is against alien races.

[Mathenaut]

Weeping Angels aren't really a good example, because there is no mystery to them. You know where they are and exactly what they are going to do.

[NoImageAvailable]

I think Weeping Angels are a better example of how fog of war adds tension. How long can your colonists go without blinking?

I haven't seen it, and, in any case, Predator ship event is on my agenda :-). But I seem to remember Tynan is against alien races.

Doesn't have to be an alien, could just be some eccentric rich guy from a Glitterworld hunting people for sport.

[SpaceDorf]

Please stop arguing about killboxes it is Tiring. The Human race like any Other communicating pack Hunter will always find a way to kill Things and then . Optimize the method. Wolves do it, Dinosaurs did it, humans do it best. The killbox is a timeproven Concept, how Else Could something as squishy as Stoneage humans kill a Mammoth ? my two cases in Gaming are Df and the Sims.


So as Long as things can die in Rimworld, Players will find a way to Optimize. This will not go away. No matter how hard we wish.

[Johnny Masters]

I won't go into more details because everyone (including myself) are starting to repeat themselves, and in a discussion that is this opinion-dependent (there is no right or wrong really), everyone will just heavily weight their "facts" to fit each agenda. Although i do weight in contrary opinions, most are based on personal bias, so i'm much more interested in someone with a neutral standpoint, for example.

That said, most nay sayers have some arguments that feel more like fear than actual concerns, saying that fog of war will turn rimworld into a mindless rts is about the same as if rimworld had already fog of war and people wanted it out, then contrary people argue that no fog of war would turn rimworld into a bureaucratic sim-city-esque building game. The former and the latter are simply not true, fow doesn't define a genre.

In part I also feel that people are afraid to lose control -unable to see what and how hostile the world really is- in order to have that "perfect-game" which i consider a syndrome. So it's understandable that most people would dislike FoW because there's the possibility you lose your favorite pawn for a stealthy sniper or because you failed to detect an invasion, but that's not the mechanic's fault it's the incapability of accepting loss.

Everyone could go back and forth ad nauseam, undermining the "opposition's" arguments to elate their own, or, like some people like to do, to personally attack the person instead of the argument. I find it, at least after some time, this to be a negative way of conducting a discussion, so instead of seeing how bad other's position are, i propose that people explain and provide examples on how good their viewings are, so everyone view as a whole which would be better to build stories, thus the game. Perhaps there's even a good compromise from that.

[SpaceDorf]

*standing Slow clap*

I would like to Write something neutral, but writing on my mobile is a Real Pain. 😳