Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hans Lemurson]

Needless friendly fire deaths? Pah!  I think all social fights should be fought with shotguns.

[The Man with No Name]

I don't think you understand how absurd this request is. You essentially want the pawns to have human-level AI, to be able to make complex moral decisions about whether or not an actual human would risk killing an ally in billions of different scenarios and hold or open fire based on that. And that's assuming a human would even make the right choice in these situations, which is obviously no guarantee.

Let's just imagine for a second that computers could do this. Now every pawn in the game needs to check thousands of variables before they fire a single shot, just in case an ally is in the way or MIGHT get in the way during firing. Every pawn, not just your colonists. The game would slow to a crawl in combat.

I'm not sure you understand what is being requested here. There are "no complex moral decisions", nor "billions of different scenarios". There is only one decision and one scenario - is a friendly pawn in the line of fire? That's all there is to it.

The second part of your response is more relevant and relates to what I touched on previously - would such a system impact on game speed/performance? Weapons don't fire instantly and have a warm-up period, so that may mitigate this, but I'm not a programmer and so can only speculate.

[Oragepoilu]

IMO, the cost of performance would probably be light, as the game already calculate stuff to know if it hit a pawn or not. It's also just now and then, not a thing that need to be check every few tics.

Could be just having your pawn check line of fire when he is aiming, and stop before he shoot (at half aiming time or whatever, maybe skilled pawn could stop up to 0.1s before shooting and low skill only 1s before shooting) if he see a friendly pawn in a direct line of fire. Put a little sign over his head to show he stop fire, then the player just have to pause, check why, and adjust the battlefield by either moving his pawn, or aim at somebody else, or keep firing regardless. With a toggle like discussed before.

That leave the possibility of friendly fire here - especially with low skill (as they doesn't check right before shooting), and with usual bullet that go behind the target or too far on a side.

That could make the fight more enjoyable instead of the "pause every frame" we have right now with a full check manually of every line of fire in every single instance where a gun/turret is involved. We already have some stuff done for the hunting problem and the possibility to have pawn flee on sight (so if they are chased they have less chance to be killed by friendly fire while attacked in melee, as they would NOT be in melee).

We already take a good chunk of time to look at every battlefield, place cover, use them', use different kind of weapon, armor, pawn trait/skill, mood ... I highly doubt that having some help to deal with this kind of friendly fire would harm the gameplay in any way.

[The Man with No Name]

How well does the game run with a large battle on three times speed? If it can handle that, then that might suggest there's enough in the tank for any friendly fire calculations.

I appreciate that this is a slightly separate issue, like an unintended bug, but here's another screenshot of the "Allow Firing" button not working as I presume it's intended to.



Pig was firing at an incapacitated ostrich on the ground. I could see that Ali was walking in a path that would take her directly over the square with the ostrich in it. So I toggled off Pig's "Allow Firing" button and watched. Pig continued to fire, so I was wondering if perhaps Pig would cease firing at the end of the firing cycle. Nope, she then started to fire again and I paused it just before Ali entered the square, as shown.

===========================================================

***NEW POST***

Although I haven't explicitly tested it yet, I have been getting the impression from playing that turning off the "Allow Firing" toggle will only stop the pawn from firing if the pawn is subsequently moved. So if a stationary pawn is given an order to stop firing and not moved, they will continue to fire.

Since I don't have a screenshot of it, I have recreated the stupidest friendly fire incident in my game, that resulted in a colonist death, in stick man form. Four colonists are melee attacking a wounded and fleeing raider. A colonist shoots at this clustered crowd of pawns, which in itself is stupid, and shoots dead a colonist standing directly between them. It's possible that this death was caused by the bug I just mentioned about pawns not ceasing firing if stationary, but I can't be sure.

[Shurp]

Be thankful he shot him dead instead of just shooting out an eye so that you're stuck with a half-useless colonist.

[Belgord]

Why did you let 4 peeps go hand to hand with a raider AND allow one of your guys to take pot shots at him?? Of course he will hit your guys, they are between his gun and the target. Don't draft him or send him somewhere else.

[Shurp]

Point is it was the straggler who got the brain shot.  The 4 guys meleeing are actually pretty safe.  But anyone else who wanders into the crossfire seems to be a guaranteed headshot.

[Hans Lemurson]

"There's no chance of me shooting dirt, so the shot MUST be clear!"

[Britnoth]

Pig was firing at an incapacitated ostrich on the ground.

Yes, BECAUSE YOU ORDERED HIM TO.

Tynan already removed friendly fire from hunting pawns ffs. I KNOW you set that situation up like that because if they were hunting the animal, they would walk right up to them, so they would not ever miss.

A colonist shoots at this clustered crowd of pawns, which in itself is stupid, and shoots dead a colonist standing directly between them.

Entirely YOUR FAULT. Stop asking (this is directed at a great many people on this forums btw) for the game to play itself while you watch.

[The Man with No Name]

Colonists will do a lot of things automatically, like feed themselves, rest, change clothes according to the temperature and so on. It's basic and realistic common sense behaviour to not shoot a fellow colonist in the head from a couple of yards away with a sniper rifle, and so it should not require human player intervention to prevent a colonist from doing this as an automatic and pre-determined action. It's not possible to make a rational argument against this. The only issues to consider are possible effects on computer performance and on the "flow" of combat.

I still hope that a solution can be found to this that eliminates egregiously daft instances of colonists shooting each other, while not having them hold fire excessively or unwantedly. So we are talking, in particular, about instances where colonists firing at targets puts other colonists in significant danger, and perhaps even greater danger than the intended targets.

Without knowing exactly how missile combat in the game is designed and programmed, it's difficult to offer definite solutions, but I like the idea of a speech bubble being issued to inform the player in such instances, were such a safety mechanism to be implemented.

The posters in this thread that like to say this is "my fault" (caps removed) are missing the point. You are basically saying that "colonists will inevitably and automatically shoot other colonists, despite this being unrealistic and illogical, and it's your fault for not taking this into account and micro-managing them to stop them automatically doing this", when the issue really is "why the hell did that colonist just shoot that other colonist completely unrealistically and in ludicrous circumstances?!".

Also, I haven't been able to determine exactly what causes the "bug" I mentioned about colonists continuing to fire after the "Allow Firing" toggle has been turned off, but I've encountered it on multiple occasions and the screenshot I provided is visual evidence of it.

[Britnoth]

It's basic and realistic common sense behaviour to not shoot a fellow colonist in the head from a couple of yards away with a sniper rifle,

But they do not do this, unless you specifically order them to do so by drafting them or setting them to fight hostiles instead of ignore or flee.

Entirely your fault.

"why the hell did that colonist just shoot that other colonist completely unrealistically and in ludicrous circumstances?!".

Because you badly positioned them which made this likely to happen.

YOU drafted the pawn. YOU moved the pawn. YOU decided to not use hold fire button.

Then you complain the game doesn't correct all your mistakes and play the game for you. Friendly fire is an important game mechanic. Used well it hurts the enemy much more than the player. It is as clear as day that it is an intended feature of the game. Trying to suggest it is an AI related bug in need of fixing is not going to get anywhere (I hope).

[Limdood]

I would HATE for the game to try to default to not firing when a friendly target is there.  I'd rather micro my colonists out of friendly fire than lose a whole damn colony because half my people won't fire because a shielded noncombatant is running in to rescue someone, or a pet is racing to a safe area.

Just like trying to "fix" hauling or construction by telling pawns to haul something when they're on their way to rest, any "fix" you add in puts another layer into the game that can't be easily predicted.  I count on a sick pawn getting to the hospital bed as fast as possible, not travelling 7 tiles out of their way in deep snow to grab something i never told them to grab.  I also count on my pawns firing en masse at the nearest enemy pawn, as soon as they possibly can.  Watching them stand there not shooting while an enemy is in range would be frustrating in the extreme for me, and similarly, has the very real possibility of making a new player, who can't figure out why their pawns won't shoot sometimes, just quit Rimworld altogether.

Lastly, i see NO reason why a pawn should NOT naturally shoot a berserking colonist.  Berserking colonists have hit the very very very last straw, and are out to KILL anyone they see, friend or foe.  Shooting them may not be the best for the colony in the long run, but its a VERY understandable reaction for a drafted colonist...until that berserk rage ends, one way or another, that colonist is essentially a mortal enemy, same as a raider.

[A Friend]

I suggest friendly fire chance be tied to the shooter's skill. The better they are, the lower the chances of ff. That way it'd feel a bit more fair. A lvl 10+ shooter will rarely miss and hit a friendly at short range while a lvl 0 would have a chance to accidentally shoot himself in the foot at point blank.

[Limdood]

I suggest friendly fire chance be tied to the shooter's skill. The better they are, the lower the chances of ff. That way it'd feel a bit more fair. A lvl 10+ shooter will rarely miss and hit a friendly at short range while a lvl 0 would have a chance to accidentally shoot himself in the foot at point blank.

please no self injuries...

[Patrykq]

I suggest friendly fire chance be tied to the shooter's skill. The better they are, the lower the chances of ff. That way it'd feel a bit more fair. A lvl 10+ shooter will rarely miss and hit a friendly at short range while a lvl 0 would have a chance to accidentally shoot himself in the foot at point blank.

please no self injuries...

Yeah, constantly shooting your allies is enough, I think haha.