Is Rimworld only going to get harder?

[Nairou]

I just started playing, in Alpha 1, and I already love this game. However, so far I've only played with Chill Callie Classic, and I still don't survive long enough to build up a nice base. Every play session ends in frustration as I watch my colonists get killed off. But, inevitably, I come back later to try again with a new approach.

I've learned how to keep all of my colonists happy, and I can survive natural disasters. But raiders still wipe me out half the time. No matter how many auto turrets I put up, or how I arrange them, the raiders either have longer range, or are more accurate, and systematically destroy every turret without many losses of their own. Having my colonists fight them usually fares better, but only when there are a few raiders. Once they start showing up in groups of 5 or more, I'm toast.

I know there's a lot planned for upcoming alphas, more things to think about and deal with, but I'm curious if there will be anything to help improve survivability. Will Rimworld get more and more brutal with each update? Or is there anything planned to balance it out on the other end as well? Tynan has mentioned on Twitter that upcoming alphas will be a lot more difficult for those that currently find the game too easy, and this has me a little worried.

[Tynan]

The game isn't intended to be excessively difficult. And I don't think I said the upcoming versions would be a lot harder. In fact, I'm continuously rebalancing things to provide lower-pressure options. I don't want it to invariably be a punshment-fest, and upcoming versions will likely be more forgiving as there will be more interesting things to fill time with than combat.

[Untrustedlife]

I just started playing, in Alpha 1, and I already love this game. However, so far I've only played with Chill Callie Classic, and I still don't survive long enough to build up a nice base. Every play session ends in frustration as I watch my colonists get killed off. But, inevitably, I come back later to try again with a new approach.

I've learned how to keep all of my colonists happy, and I can survive natural disasters. But raiders still wipe me out half the time. No matter how many auto turrets I put up, or how I arrange them, the raiders either have longer range, or are more accurate, and systematically destroy every turret without many losses of their own. Having my colonists fight them usually fares better, but only when there are a few raiders. Once they start showing up in groups of 5 or more, I'm toast.

I know there's a lot planned for upcoming alphas, more things to think about and deal with, but I'm curious if there will be anything to help improve survivability. Will Rimworld get more and more brutal with each update? Or is there anything planned to balance it out on the other end as well? Tynan has mentioned on Twitter that upcoming alphas will be a lot more difficult for those that currently find the game too easy, and this has me a little worried.

Ick.

The reason we find it ludicrously easy is that once you have mines you are literally invincible, if you build your base up it is ridiculously easy Killboxes, aslo make it ridiculously easy.

Play a bit longer and you will be begging for challenge. You said you just started, don't jump to the conclusion that it is "too hard" as it is the EXACT opposite.

I hate it when people complain about difficulty in game that is easy simply because tehy are inexperienced with it.


I can't belive you are worried with chill clalie classic.

[Untrustedlife]

The game isn't intended to be excessively difficult. And I don't think I said the upcoming versions would be a lot harder. In fact, I'm continuously rebalancing things to provide lower-pressure options. I don't want it to invariably be a punshment-fest, and upcoming versions will likely be more forgiving as there will be more interesting things to fill time with than combat.

please don't be thrown into that mindset, you have seen the complaints.
The op obviously never researched mines. (or learned how to make  a kill box)

[Galileus]

To be fair RimWorld right now is "one problem, one solution" kind of game. The problem is in how destructive events can be if you don't know how to counter them, and how forgiving and forgettable they are once you know the answer. So I believe once RimWorld has much more events and more synergies between them, it should be more forgiving - and instead of wiping you out when you're unprepared, surprise you constantly with something you're not prepared for. Combinations of events, that render your answers meaningless - and thus create a new challenge and new threat.

If the game is too punishing, it's easy to fall into mines problem all over again. It won't be mines - but it will be the one winning strategy. If the game is too punishing, it either needs dozens of answers to choose from (that keeps you playing and trying again) or it forces you to find that one winning tactic and keep to it. At the same time less punishing game can still be tough (especially on harder difficulties) - but it is hard while letting you experiment and find your way. It doesn't force you to play great - it allows you to play a bit worse, and be able to learn from your mistakes in the same gameplay. And this is much more fitting into the idea behind RimWorld in my opinion. Mostly, because game that is not punishing will allow you to regroup and try again - and this is where the best stories come from.

Don't get me wrong - I want a challenging game. But there is a huge difference between challenging and punishing. I want a game where I can be loosing without actually loosing the game.

[Untrustedlife]

To be fair RimWorld right now is "one problem, one solution" kind of game. The problem is in how destructive events can be if you don't know how to counter them, and how forgiving and forgettable they are once you know the answer. So I believe once RimWorld has much more events and more synergies between them, it should be more forgiving - and instead of wiping you out when you're unprepared, surprise you constantly with something you're not prepared for. Combinations of events, that render your answers meaningless - and thus create a new challenge and new threat.

If the game is too punishing, it's easy to fall into mines problem all over again. It won't be mines - but it will be the one winning strategy. If the game is too punishing, it either needs dozens of answers to choose from (that keeps you playing and trying again) or it forces you to find that one winning tactic and keep to it. At the same time less punishing game can still be tough (especially on harder difficulties) - but it is hard while letting you experiment and find your way. It doesn't force you to play great - it allows you to play a bit worse, and be able to learn from your mistakes in the same gameplay. And this is much more fitting into the idea behind RimWorld in my opinion. Mostly, because game that is not punishing will allow you to regroup and try again - and this is where the best stories come from.

Don't get me wrong - I want a challenging game. But there is a huge difference between challenging and punishing. I want a game where I can be loosing without actually loosing the game.

After reading what you said, I fully agree with you.

[Ozog]

Well according to the changelog: "Blasting charges cut (until they can be balanced properly)"

So the difficultly level just elevated for me

P.S. This is a good thing, I think

[Tynan]

Yeah, this thread reminded me to do that. I do intend to bring back something like them, maybe, but they were cheap to put in and even cheaper to remove. Clearly they're weakening the game as-is.

[Nairou]

Thanks, Tynan, for the clarification. That sounds great.

And, for reference, this is the twitter post which I took to mean things were getting more difficult. Sorry if I got the wrong impression.

[colonistPally]

If anyone needs help with build orders to survive the first 3 or so days, I spell it out pretty clearly at the beginning of Colony 9.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGVG-OLL8J4

The game is extremely challenging for new comers so surviving the first 3 days really "unlocks" the rest of the game.

[Moonblink]

Not to hard and not to easy. That's why we have difficulty levels. What is fine for one might not be fine for another. I want a challenge at the same time I hate being frustrated. 

[Tynan]

Ah yes, that tweet. That was more about me saying that the endgame will get harder - or at least less empty and predictable. The early game shouldn't be really hard. Or, at least, the threats you face shouldn't be terminal.

[TimMartland]

The game becomes quite difficult if (Like me) You dont want to use killboxes or waffling because they look weird. It would be nice not to have the constantly increasing number of raiders, so you could just settle down for a mostly peaceful life with 6-ish coloinsts

[Dr. Z]

The game really get's easyer once you have experience. My first colony survived something around 20 days I guess and it felt like years. Now I'm playing a bit, building stuff and then I see "Oh, the colony is 60 days old". Maybe a bit exeggerated but I think you got my point.

[colonistPally]

The game becomes quite difficult if (Like me) You dont want to use killboxes or waffling because they look weird. It would be nice not to have the constantly increasing number of raiders, so you could just settle down for a mostly peaceful life with 6-ish coloinsts

I believe there's a mode down at the end that's a "no-raider" mode for the builder types like myself that only like to challenge them self some times.

Also the raider increase gets tricky for several reasons indeed. I'm hoping some point in the future instead of increasing in number they do things like start counter-colonies. That way the tactics stay fresh.