Automated Units.

[DFplayer]

A) Native Americans used gunpowder based weaponry with much success.

But not against gunships or remote controlled military drones, right? And not just 3 or 15 of them.

B) Games are not made to be realistic, because they would be boring.

That was actually one of my arguments. Well, you haven't read it.

D) A medium sized company can easily buy a big car or even a boat or a plane, but getting a armed sloop of war or even an outdated rocket launcher is not so easy of an deal, not to mention getting armed and fight-capable armored vehicle.

They still should be able to get something better then the last millennial.

We are talking about slave traders and weapon dealers without morals and its said that for most planets the government failed.

Like, they already have some kind of torpedos to throw their trading items and slaves safely to the surface of a planet with a very high accuracy, right?

Why not fire triggered (gas-) bombs with these torpedos?

All in all, your reasoning is - ironically, seeing how you keep saying "unrealistic" - rather shallow and unrealistic ^^'

Im argumenting against the fact that smart robots would be unrealistic in the game.

Saying that games are not meant to be realistic is an counter argument against that, and its a argument i used myself.

i never said that rimworld has to be realistic, in my first posts i just said that robots wouldn't actually be unrealistic, in my last post i stated that this game has already a lot of unrealistic (anachronistic) content.

[Galileus]

Sorry for misunderstanding, then. Seriously, your posts are so long and there's so much circling in them, you can't blame me for skipping through. Especially when you tend to make points about... well, pretty much whatever, it's rather hard to read through it.

To be sincere, I'm completely lost what your point is and where do you get your info from. How do you know how slavery works (it can very well be a legal trade scenario), how traders pick up cargo (a shuttle (!) completely negates your argument), what gunships have to do with Native Americans (they weren't around, right?), what would slavers eat if they can't trade (who would trade with someone who has no morale and is likely to take your money and you as a cargo?), and, once again, what actually does all of that have to do with whatever it is your point is ^^'

I should leave this topic until this stabilizes. I mean - it is <insert creator's opinion and gameplay reasons here> that smart robots exist in that universe. So yeah...

PS. To be fair, I point out at you unfairly here, this whole discussion got very convoluted and kind of ridiculous, with all of it's participants going circles ^^'

[DFplayer]

what gunships have to do with Native Americans (they weren't around, right?)

you tell me, you brought native americans up, not me.

You said they had succes with low tech, i said that we had lesser technology at that point too.

How do you know how slavery works (it can very well be a legal trade scenario)

Here is some background story about rimworld:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pIZyKif0bFbBWten4drrm7kfSSfvBoJPgG9-ywfN8j8/pub

So, there is basically no form of government in our rimworlds.

how traders pick up cargo (a shuttle (!) completely negates your argument)

Buy something and you see this capsules slowly landing close to your beacon and fading to invisibility. Whatever that is could be used as a weapon.

what would slavers eat if they can't trade

They value a pistol more then food if you sell it to them, that makes me believe that they aren't starving. And you can buy their food too, for low price.

Ackording to the background story there is no faster then light travel. Traveling between stars would take YEARS.

Traveling for such a long time to buy and sell pistols sounds unprofitable to me....

Also, i guess you would most likely make sure  that you have enough food before you start a multiple years long journey. Or a self sustaining ship (otherwise, how do they have enough oxygen for years?)

[Galileus]

Here is some background story about rimworld:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pIZyKif0bFbBWten4drrm7kfSSfvBoJPgG9-ywfN8j8/pub

So, there is basically no form of government in our rimworlds.

Nope, it's not what it says.

Rimworlds - Distant and isolated planets lacking in strong central government and low in population density

There is no strong central governmnet, it mention nothing about no form of government at all. Actually it could even suggest that there is some sort of weak central government, or a theoretic one - like core worlds.

Buy something and you see this capsules slowly landing close to your beacon and fading to invisibility. Whatever that is could be used as a weapon.

So your whole point is made only because of early alpha's graphical representation, that is there because that animation was already there? It does not explain how they pick cargo up from the planet. It can very well be a placeholder or a replacement, because in early stage anything more complicated was not possible.

They value a pistol more then food if you sell it to them, that makes me believe that they aren't starving. And you can buy their food too, for low price.

Again, your whole argument is based on in-game state of the matters, which is just poor. Not to mention, it is invalid - you analyze the situation where slavers do NOT come down to enslave everyone when you trade with them. If they did - would you be selling them that food?

Ackording to the background story there is no faster then light travel. Traveling between stars would take YEARS.
Traveling for such a long time to buy and sell pistols sounds unprofitable to me....

Again, assumptions. What if there is another planet - or five - in that solar system? Now with a better assumption, that you can base something off actually - why trade between stars if travel takes decades? Wouldn't it be a better thing to assume in-system trade? Something, I believe, Tynan mentioned?

Also, i guess you would most likely make sure  that you have enough food before you start a multiple years long journey. Or a self sustaining ship (otherwise, how do they have enough oxygen for years?)

One - there is no detail about how that travel happens. It can be cryo pods, it can be recycling of matter, it can be anything. Two - this whole argument is irrelevant to the case. My argument was - "how would slavers get any food if no-one would trade with them?" How does "they would have to" answer that?


You make a lot of assumptions, and no argumentation. You can't argue with someone who presents their assumptions as arguments - please, keep that in mind.

[DFplayer]

Again, your whole argument is based on in-game state of the matters, which is just poor. Not to mention, it is invalid - you analyze the situation where slavers do NOT come down to enslave everyone when you trade with them. If they did - would you be selling them that food?

They could simply loot our food and other valuables afterwards.

I highly doubt that prices of food and weapons will change much, as it would drastically change the balance of the game. - You can produce an unlimited amount of food, making it more valuable then thousand year old weapons would completely destroy the balance.

There is no strong central governmnet, it mention nothing about no form of government at all. Actually it could even suggest that there is some sort of weak central government, or a theoretic one - like core worlds.

Good point.

So your whole point is made only because of early alpha's graphical representation, that is there because that animation was already there? It does not explain how they pick cargo up from the planet. It can very well be a placeholder or a replacement, because in early stage anything more complicated was not possible.

Couldn't anything, a shuttle or some kind of torpedo with high accuracy, be abused as an weapon? (or at least travel a bomb or remote controlled attack drone etc...)

All you need to do is get something inside the base that kills or disables the colonists. At least most of them. (there aren't many to begin with)

Again, assumptions. What if there is another planet - or five - in that solar system? Now with a better assumption, that you can base something off actually - why trade between stars if travel takes decades? Wouldn't it be a better thing to assume in-system trade? Something, I believe, Tynan mentioned?

Right. But then one of this planets in the system would most likely be higher advanced then the current earth. At least advanced enough to maintain constant upkeep of multiple spacecrafts.

Also, earth like planets aren't common. So either they are in possession of space stations or able to colonize/terraform planets that are hostile to life. (technology far, far beyond industrial tech)

Even if you assume that there is a system with multiple earth like planets (in the same solar system? sounds impossible to me because of the individual distance to the sun of each planet ), even then traveling from Planet to planet with a high tech spacecraft to sell weapons of the last millennial seems ridiculous to me.

It can be cryo pods, it can be recycling of matter, it can be anything.

Yes, but all of these technology's would be beyond industrial tech.

You make a lot of assumptions, and no argumentation. You can't argue with someone who presents their assumptions as arguments - please, keep that in mind.

Yes, i assume that rimworld is based on the real world. Don't forget how the argumentation started. The argumentation started with the assumption that smart robots shouldn't be included in the game because that would be unrealistic. Which already implies that rimworld is based on real world.

And you counter my assumptions with assumptions of yourself. (like multiple habitable planets in a single solar system).

As we talk about a piece of fiction, theoretical, everything strange or any logical gap could be explained with "its magic" as there is nothing that could stop tynan from including magic in rimworld. He is the god of this world. If we don't assume that rimworld is more or less based on real world (most fiction is at least loosely based on reality and physics etc.), any discussion about story or realism becomes absurd. I will stop here before this becomes another wall of text.

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

You seem to be entirely missing the point that is the fact that space travel takes a very long time, so new ideas and technology don't spread very quickly. Figure it like this: as the whole world is inter-connected now with the internet, in the 1800's a village in the American Wild West suddenly had a magical barrier seperate it from the rest of the world.  What are the odds that they keep moving along at the same pace? What are the chances that the next Tesla or Einstein is born in that specific town, rather than being cut off from it?

For that matter, who's to say that tech will even develop the same way? The Byzantines used "Greek fire" a thousand years ago and we still have no idea what exactly it was. Technological advancement is not linear, so just because something seems nearby for us does not mean that it's nearby for anyone with a similar tech-level, or even a higher tech-level. We haven't been able to replicate Damascus steel, the Roman secret of concrete wasn't done again for a millenia, etc. It's entirely possible to have a Greek phalanx with laser beams (and they may have even had a death ray, if you believe the legend about Archimedes doing it, another example). You should not judge all technological advancement for all cultures based on the way that specifically ours has gone.

[DFplayer]

Right, but our colonists are able to fly a spaceship and can build complicated high tech buildings in a few hours.

Having planets that are stuck in the middle- or industrial age sounds plausible for me. People being able to build and fly spacecrafts, communication devices and automatic turrets being stuck with weapons from the wild west era is what bothers me. If they can build an automatic turret with a highly advanced neuronal network as artificial intelligence, that also must have some highly advanced sensors(!) then building a machine gun, tank or even a gunship shouldn't be much of a problem for them.

Simply by building these turrets they prove that they are capable of building automatic weapons by themselves. They also have the technology for remote triggered bombs. It should be possible to use that knowledge for something superior then a pistol or shotgun. (its really not a big step). How hard could it be to tinker an artillery or mortar if they can build these turrets and bombs?



And it still sounds ridiculous to me to fly from solar system to solar system in a highly advanced spaceship to buy pistols.

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

Right, but our colonists are able to fly a spaceship and can build complicated high tech buildings in a few hours.

We also have a lot of people today who can use the internet but can't run a telegraph line. We have people who can fly drones but couldn't operate a steamboat. Just because it's more high tech doesn't mean that it's harder to learn to use.

Having planets that are stuck in the middle- or industrial age sounds plausible for me. People being able to build and fly spacecrafts, communication devices and automatic turrets being stuck with weapons from the wild west era is what bothers me.

Again, technology isn't linear. It's entirely possible that some human civilization exists a billion lightyears from here that figured out how to get into orbit without ever creating gunpowder.

If they can build an automatic turret with a highly advanced neuronal network as artificial intelligence, that also must have some highly advanced sensors(!) then building a machine gun, tank or even a gunship shouldn't be much of a problem for them.

The turret is not fully automatic, it's in bursts with a long reload time, as opposed to the pistol providing a more steady rate of fire. Mayube they haven't developed a rapid-feed system yet for large-caliber guns such as those turrets? Also, do you see raiders land on the surface in ships? No, in drop pods. There is no implication that anywhere in the universe there exists a ship capable of breaking out of the atmosphere and into orbit, yet also able to just hover within the atmosphere. That's rather high-tech aeronautics. If you look at what we have today, the idea of the space shuttle hovering or landing carefully on the surface is laughable. So saying "a gunship shouldn't be much of a problem" is again poorly interpreting technological advancements.

And also, let me say that saying "it's not really a big step" to go from remote-triggered explosives to artillery because they know how to make burst-fire turrets is completely wrong. The study of firearms is much more complex than "put it down a barrel and shoot it". Firing arrows required a bow, yet firing boulders required a catapult. The two have entirely different firing mechanisms because the projectiles are entirely different. A small stone required a sling, an arrow required a bow, and a boulder required a catapult or trebuchet. Like this, firing bullets and firing bombs are completely different things, and as I've said multiple times, technology isn't linear. It's possible that they have gunpoweder knowledge forever without ever discovering rocketry.

And it still sounds ridiculous to me to fly from solar system to solar system in a highly advanced spaceship to buy pistols.

If a ship specializes in weaponry, and it takes a long time to travel, they want to have ample variety to have the largest possible consumer base. They're not going to exclude potential customers and not stock something just because they feel a gun doesn't have enough firepower when it's still an effective gun. That's just a poor business model that alienates their target consumer-base for no real reason, considering a full ship of arms would have plenty of storage space to have such variety. That's like running a bicycle shop and refusing to sell cheap bicycles fitted with training wheels just because they aren't as good as your carbon-fiber $3000 sports bikes.

[Galileus]

And you counter my assumptions with assumptions of yourself. (like multiple habitable planets in a single solar system).

I do not argument based on assumptions, I break your arguments by presenting alternative assumptions. As your arguments are all based on far-gone assumptions, providing a counter-assumption is the only way to discuss with you. It disproves the argument by presenting an alternate and as viable option in which the argument is invalid - due to different set of assumptions.

I cannot counter-argument you. Your argumentation is based on assumptions, and that means any of my arguments could be just further ignored by you by assuming more and more - which you did exactly. It's like arguing with someone who thinks jews rule the world - you cannot disprove it, so he'll keep arguing it must be true.

Right, but our colonists are able to fly a spaceship and can build complicated high tech buildings in a few hours.

We also have a lot of people today who can use the internet but can't run a telegraph line. We have people who can fly drones but couldn't operate a steamboat. Just because it's more high tech doesn't mean that it's harder to learn to use.

That so much. And other points too.

[DFplayer]

You mean assumptions like theres rarely more then one habitable planet per solar system? Yea, thats totally far stretched... -__-

It's like arguing with someone who thinks jews rule the world - you cannot disprove it, so he'll keep arguing it must be true.

My response to that is a Wikipedia Quote:

According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

Again, technology isn't linear. It's entirely possible that some human civilization exists a billion lightyears from here that figured out how to get into orbit without ever creating gunpowder.

Right, but i know its incredibly far stretched for me to say that in a hostile universe like rimworld you would assume that advancing in weaponry or defenses is a high priority.

And because of the FACT that our colonists can easily build some amazing communication and radar devices right away and there is interstellar travel i kinda question how isolated they can be that they never heard of more advanced weaponry then bows and pistols.

And its a fact that there are more advanced weaponry out there in the universe of rimworld.

Its quite amazing that they managed to be so isolated and at the one side so highly advanced in any form of technology (space travel, electronics, communication, mining, super fast building/engineering ...) and at the other side so low tech in something that should be something of high priority for them.

That's not impossible, but Yes, I'm the one who's assumptions are a bit far stretched, right?

We also have a lot of people today who can use the internet but can't run a telegraph line. We have people who can fly drones but couldn't operate a steamboat. Just because it's more high tech doesn't mean that it's harder to learn to use.

That so much. And other points too.

I know that assuming that an engineer with knowledge in weaponry (enough to build an highly advanced automatic turret) can use his skills and knowledge to tinker weapons is incredibly far stretched. (really?! -__- )

THATS IMPOSSIBLE! He would need a completely different set of skills for doing this. Its totally comparable to how someone who can use the Internet can't use a telegraph.

Its so far stretched for me that en engineer with knowledge of electronics, physics, weapons etc. can somehow use that knowledge to build new things, like improvised weapons and traps. Right.

Next you will tell me that they haven't researched wheels yet in the Rimworld universe, thus they won't be able to build armored vehicles. Because that Assumption is not even slightly far stretched.

[Galileus]

You mean assumptions like theres rarely more then one habitable planet per solar system? Yea, thats totally far stretched... -__-

This one wasn't an assumption, this one was referring to statement by Tynan as well as I've remembered it.

It's like arguing with someone who thinks jews rule the world - you cannot disprove it, so he'll keep arguing it must be true.

My response to that is a Wikipedia Quote:

According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

Do you mean you want to compare me to Hitler in response? Or anything that contains word "jew" in it is nazi by nature? Because this has nothing to do with my statement. Please, read it again.

[DFplayer]

Do you mean you want to compare me to Hitler in response? Or anything that contains word "jew" in it is nazi by nature? Because this has nothing to do with my statement. Please, read it again.

"to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party."

That jews rule the world was a major claim by hitler and his party. They aren't the only antisemites in the world, but the first you think of.

I don't see the logic in assuming that i somehow compare you with hitler? You accuse me of "Reductio ad Hitlerum" because i accused you of it? What?

I just wanted to say that, in my opinion, it was inappropriate and unnecessary of you to bring antisemitism up in a discussion about realism of a fictional videogame.

link to the Wikpedia article of Reductio ad Hitlerum

According to Strauss, Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem or ad misericordiam, a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. Its name is a variation on the term reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card."[2] According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.[2]

[Galileus]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Also, argumentum ad hominem.

[DFplayer]

Ok, i got a question then.

Why compare my way of argumentation just with that of antisemits instead of just pointing out a logical fallacy?

[Galileus]

I've compared your reasoning based on assumptions with typical way of reasoning of most conspiracy theories. It just so happens this one is the most known one - also a wonderful subject for Dukaj's analysis of such argumentation in Xavras Wyżryn. It has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Correlation does not imply causation. Your whole line of attack here is to try and accuse me of accusing you of antisemitism when there was no such case. And seriously, pulling a Hitler card is pretty sickening, pulling a Hitler card and pretending to be a victim of it is just disgusting.

Any more about it from you, and I will end up calling up mods. There is a limit to what I'll agree to listen to.