Wanderers.....

[8roads]

that's against the will of developers.

Source please.

don't need source. need common sense.
when developers want to "hear about exploit strategies", do you need to prove your understanding of their intention every time you report an exploit?
but still, let me try...

all sorts of things make characters unwelcome.
they get old, they are crippled, they become rivals and fight each other.
NOT being able to solve the problem by easily removing unwanted pawns is exactly what's fascinating about the game.
if removing pawn without penalty is allowed, game would have provided the option.
but there's no such option, so you pull off a scam. it's smart, but it should be patched.

I have a penalty: It is 1 less colonist.

no, it's bliss, it's 1 less burden for you.
or else why bother tricking the system?

that's not your choice to make.

Reroll button on starting pawn selection screen tells us otherwise.

you cannot reroll in the middle of a game.
you cannot reroll before or after wanderers show up.

[Britnoth]

don't need source. need common sense.

Not having the option to stop someone just wandering in and declaring themselves a member of my community is now common sense? Really? Is rimworld now the EU?

[zandadoum]

don't need source. need common sense.

Not having the option to stop someone just wandering in and declaring themselves a member of my community is now common sense? Really? Is rimworld now the EU?

BA DUM TCH
https://youtu.be/yNizwPBaU6U

On another note:
Non violent sheriff? Geez Tynan, fix back stories vs. traits already.

[kasnavada]

don't need source. need common sense.

Not having the option to stop someone just wandering in and declaring themselves a member of my community is now common sense? Really? Is rimworld now the EU?

I always thought of the wanderer joining coming in as "my colonists like this guy, so they let him in".
Common sense really.

About the "defend the guy from pirates"... yes if you kill 30 people (which are your enemies) to save one guy, everyone is going to assume that he's a part of your group. If there were a choice of letting him go after defending him, I'd put a debuff "-15 we saved someone for one day but let him out to die during the next days because we're jerks".

Again, that's common sense.

What's less common sense is people min-maxing their colony, rather than playing a story.

[Britnoth]

I always thought of the wanderer joining coming in as "my colonists like this guy, so they let him in".

~~~

What's less common sense is people min-maxing their colony, rather than playing a story.

Except I am the colonists. I tell them what to do. So for this event the wanderer just decides to join and myself (and by extension, the colonists) have no control over it.

Playing the game in a competitive manner is a lot of fun, and is in no way less valid than just trying to make the largest colony you can, or just letting things happen and role playing the game as a story generator.

Common sense would be not telling people how to run their colony just because it is different from how you do it.

Insert another EU joke of your choice. 

[8roads]

don't need source. need common sense.

Not having the option to stop someone just wandering in and declaring themselves a member of my community is now common sense? Really? Is rimworld now the EU?

Except I am the colonists. I tell them what to do. So for this event the wanderer just decides to join and myself (and by extension, the colonists) have no control over it.

but your exploit is not about stopping wanderers joining.
it's about tricking colonists out of colony, wherever he came from.

your protest against the event won't change the nature of exploit.

Except I am the colonists. I tell them what to do. So for this event the wanderer just decides to join and myself (and by extension, the colonists) have no control over it.

player is not omnipotent, whether you are chess player or rimworld player.
even with devmode on, you still have no control over a lot of things.

Playing the game in a competitive manner is a lot of fun, and is in no way less valid than just trying to make the largest colony you can, or just letting things happen and role playing the game as a story generator.

Common sense would be not telling people how to run their colony just because it is different from how you do it.

then embrace Exploit Strategies wholeheartedly.
there are all kinds of loopholes you can exploit without breaking the rules.
if rimworld players must compete, the one who exploit most will always win.
it's ton of joy, but the game's virtue won't be intact.

[CannibarRechter]

> but your exploit is not about stopping wanderers joining.

Can we please stop calling other player exploiters?

[8roads]

> but your exploit is not about stopping wanderers joining.

Can we please stop calling other player exploiters?

it is what it is, an exploit.
or are we not allowed to spot exploit now?
discussion like this will only improve the game
and what's the big deal?
exploiting is not cheating
it's just unreliable method, which is likely to be changed

[Britnoth]

> but your exploit is not about stopping wanderers joining.

Can we please stop calling other player exploiters?

it is what it is, an exploit.
or are we not allowed to spot exploit now?
discussion like this will only improve the game
and what's the big deal?
exploiting is not cheating
it's just unreliable method, which is likely to be changed

it's about tricking colonists out of colony, wherever he came from.

your protest against the event won't change the nature of exploit.

Then post it on the bug forums, as a bug that arrested colonists will escape rather than wait in prison obediently. Then we will know.

Or, stop calling me a cheat.

[stu89pid]

> but your exploit is not about stopping wanderers joining.

Can we please stop calling other player exploiters?

Just wanted to come in and confirm everything you have said, yes this is an exploit, no there is nothing to be ashamed about using an exploit in a single player game, and you are much more patient with these unreasonable posters than I would have been able to be and commend you for that.

And secondly, to reiterate you are talking about the ability to arrest a colonist, and prop the door to their room open allowing them to escape penalty free. This is completely unrelated to whether or not wanderers should automatically join.

Lastly, the comment that having the ability to re-roll colonists before landing on your Rimworld somehow proves the developer wants you to be able to get rid of colonists without penalty was to silly to not bring up it's absurdity.

it is what it is, an exploit.
or are we not allowed to spot exploit now?
discussion like this will only improve the game
and what's the big deal?
exploiting is not cheating
it's just unreliable method, which is likely to be changed

[8roads]

i rest my case. thanks.

[kasnavada]

Common sense would be not telling people how to run their colony just because it is different from how you do it.

First version. Which is exactly what you're proposing. Ohhhh, There is So Much Irony I Feel It Burn.


Second version.
You want to force me to have complete control over who is in my colony ?
HOW DARE YOU ?



Third version:
There's probably a mod that enables what you want and / or you can disable wanderers from the scenario menu.

[Dunbal]

Oh why , why cant we see what kind of people they are before we accept them into the colony......

I call THOSE "organ donors". Arrest them, harvest them, euthanize them. Everyone takes a tiny mood hit for a few days, end of story

[taha]

From RP perspective: a couple of people are in a hostile environment, where almost everything tries to have a piece of them, even the rabbits. Of course they become paranoid and every potential candidate of joining is kept in a safe cell for a while before is "accepted". But if someone comes from never-neverland and joins, they suddenly accept just because. Yep, that makes sense.

From a competitive player perspective. I have x amount of food for y amount of people, so I have enough food for z days. Those people have following traits: a / b / c, and those traits forces me to adopt this or that game-play style. But if another colonist joins, with total opposing traits, I must accept it, just because.

No, is not working for me. And it does not make sense in the bigger picture. You are forced to micro manage a crapload of minor things, but when it comes to a quite big decision like accepting another colonist, the game decides for you.

And give me a break with "will of developers". Is not Blizzard or EA here. Small indie companies are supposed to follow the customers guidelines, not the other way around.

[Scalare]

From RP perspective: a couple of people are in a hostile environment, where almost everything tries to have a piece of them, even the rabbits. Of course they become paranoid and every potential candidate of joining is kept in a safe cell for a while before is "accepted". But if someone comes from never-neverland and joins, they suddenly accept just because. Yep, that makes sense.

From a competitive player perspective. I have x amount of food for y amount of people, so I have enough food for z days. Those people have following traits: a / b / c, and those traits forces me to adopt this or that game-play style. But if another colonist joins, with total opposing traits, I must accept it, just because.

No, is not working for me. And it does not make sense in the bigger picture. You are forced to micro manage a crapload of minor things, but when it comes to a quite big decision like accepting another colonist, the game decides for you.

And give me a break with "will of developers". Is not Blizzard or EA here. Small indie companies are supposed to follow the customers guidelines, not the other way around.

Perhaps it's normal where the developers live that people randomly come and live in your house and you have to accept them?