A18

[AngleWyrm]

An extremely complex rework of a core system. More as an academic discussion than as a real feature-request: Pawns choose tasks based on a formula incorporating 1) a player-controlled global priority list; 2) that pawn's current needs; 3) that pawn's total time required to complete that task, including hauling and walking time; 4) how much time has been devoted to that task recently by all pawns. Might not be as hard as it looks. The AI system is a think tree; when a pawn considers what to do next, they have what looks like a folder structure to examine. In each folder is a quick way to evaluate whether or not to continue down that branch. For example, there's probably a folder marked "Pizza sounds reeeel good right about now." If it does indeed sound good, then the search continues inside, where there is another folder marked "Call the pizza place."

[BlazinTheWok]

This is really getting blown out of proportion. Since Alpha 15 I haven't lost a single colonist to a predator hunting them.  Not once. So clearly either I am just amazingly lucky or the whole draft colonists and kill predators works just fine.

You act like losing a colonist makes the game impossible. If you don't do your due diligence then you deserve the consequences. Sorry that you can't just leave it on 3 times speed forever. You see what makes Rimworld a great game is the variety of challenges it throws at you. As you said raids present challenge of tactics and base design. Diseases are resource management and pre-planning. Predators, just like to many civilizations before are dangerous and need to be dealt with.

We don't need yet another alarm because you refuse to just pay attention to signs of predators, install turrets, draft hunt, or even simpler download a mod.

If we are going to do anything, make the Wildlife tab mod part of the base game. It takes two seconds to click it and it shows all wildlife on the map with a special designation for predators.

Just because other challenges have alarms doesn't mean all of them need to. The predators hunting pawns is a unique challenge and there is no reason to add yet another alarm.

[AngleWyrm]

One of the challenges I most enjoy is working with the increasing complexity that happens as the colony grows. It takes more than a Standard Operating Procedure, it takes viewing out past where that SOP will take us. It's just good planning, bearing witness to the things on the horizon and arranging for their arrival.

Speaking of think trees, anyone notice a substantial performance drop when traders arrive? Contrary to popular belief, it's not actually a general reduction in the average IQ of pawns on the map. Quite the opposite, actually. I theorize that those guys are doing the same amount of thinking as colonists. And what's more, they don't really need to be doing that. They're traders, and all they really want to do is buy & sell stuff, hang out, eat drink and be merry for a while. It might be possible to prune their think trees down to eliminate meditating on scenarios that don't apply.

[TheMeInTeam]

This is really getting blown out of proportion. Since Alpha 15 I haven't lost a single colonist to a predator hunting them.  Not once. So clearly either I am just amazingly lucky or the whole draft colonists and kill predators works just fine.

That's not relevant to the points presented so far. 

You act like losing a colonist makes the game impossible. If you don't do your due diligence then you deserve the consequences. Sorry that you can't just leave it on 3 times speed forever. You see what makes Rimworld a great game is the variety of challenges it throws at you. As you said raids present challenge of tactics and base design. Diseases are resource management and pre-planning. Predators, just like to many civilizations before are dangerous and need to be dealt with.

The assertion that there is "challenge" does not hold.  Patience for mundane work is not "challenge", in fact this mechanic makes players wait to experience meaningful challenge if they do like you suggest.  "Constantly do x mundane task" is not a meaningful choice; it is a means to mitigate a design flaw, a flaw that is inconsistent with core gameplay.  It's not a suggestion to think, use strategy, or do something difficult to execute.  It increases the time between meaningful decisions in the game while conferring no gameplay benefit itself.  The point that it is identical in principle to having to constantly manually lower the cooler temperature stands.

The rest the quote above is a mixture of straw (speed 3 comment) and red herring (incoherent, inconsistent rehash of a history lesson).  These fallacies do not support the mechanic or the position that it adds any value to the game.  They have also been refuted already; repeating them without addressing their counterpoints is anti-discussion.

We don't need yet another alarm because you refuse to just pay attention to signs of predators, install turrets, draft hunt, or even simpler download a mod.

Red herring.  If you can address the actual arguments please do so.

Just because other challenges have alarms doesn't mean all of them need to. The predators hunting pawns is a unique challenge and there is no reason to add yet another alarm.

Having to manually turn down the cooler every six hours would be a "unique challenge" using the basis presented above...IE there is no credible basis for that assertion.

If players wish to play speed 1 manually targeting down predators at every opportunity or rely on mods to cover bad implementation, there's nothing in the change request I proposed or alternative solutions that prevents them doing so.

Constantly panning the map on speed 1 requires neither skill nor execution nor careful thought.  It's a negative to meaningful decisions for people who don't like grinding.  It counteracts the preparation and execution of virtually every other mechanic in the game.

Or would you be willing to assert that needing to manually alter the cooler would improve the game, or needing to manually flick the sun lamp at night again would improve it?  Maybe we could set the game so that you have to order tamed animals to eat manually or they die, same for pawns.  All of these are logical equivalents of the "manually hunt predators" solution, and adding each to the game is a "unique challenge" for players to stay on top of is an identical position to the one you just presented for animals. 

"It's not so bad!  You just have to manually order them to eat and you can go multiple patches without anybody starving!".  That is the logical conclusion of your rationale so far.  After all, people had to eat historically.  For this "manually hunting animals is okay as a required solution" line of thinking to be coherent, this is the kind of gameplay you'd wind up happily accepting.

Is that really the position you wish to take?

[Bozobub]

Again, taming every predator possible (then slaughtering them, usually) has made it so I have not had this as an issue for at least 3 VERY long games; including my current A17 playthrough, it's 4 now, although I'm nowhere near as far along as my previous runs.   I'm sure simply hunting them will work fine, as well (if a bit more risky).

I'm not against a notification and/or inclusion of the Wildlife tab at all — on the contrary, it's a great idea — but pretending that this is also some sort of onerous task is not going to work; it simply isn't, not by any stretch.

I don't get the resistance to a simple notification at all but I also don't get why it has to be such a huge issue in the 1st place.

[BetaSpectre]

I've lost something like 4-5 colonists to hungry predators. Killing/Taming them all is viable, but still it's an extra hassle, and doesn't really feel like anything but a chore. Adding a note just like when a colonist breaks down would be warranted.

[BlazinTheWok]

Stuff

Now I see the problem. You have an inability to separate your opinion from objective fact. The fact that I haven't lost a colonist since Alpha 15 to a predator hunting them is just as relevant as the fact that you seem to be incapable of not losing a colonist to hunting predators. Your inability to handle a challenge that others, not just myself seem to manage just fine, speaks volumes. Objective fact: You can solve the predator hunting colonist issue easily without the need for wasted time adding yet another alarm to the game.

Another objective fact: Predators hunting colonists is a unique challenge in the game.

As you've stated, it doesn't have an easymode auto pause alarm that handholds you. You have to look for signs of predators, you have to actively protect your territory. Saying that it is "mundane work" is your opinion. Your inability to address the points and just dismissing them because you don't agree with them speaks volumes of the shallowness of your argument. Your apples to oranges comparisons don't lend any credibility to your argument, it just exposes the fact your position does not hold water. Predators and manually lowering temperatures are two completely different things. Learn to address the points with facts.

The fact we don't need another alarm because I've presented MULTIPLE solutions to your "problem" is not a red herring. Nice try though.

And no, the fact you can't leave the game on 3x speed forever and expect to be fine is not straw. There is a reason you can easily shift between speeds, pause at any moment, and why 1x speed exists. 1x speed is the speed the game is designed and balanced around. 2x and 3x speed was put in to give alternatives to the default speed. If 3x speed was what the game was balanced around, it wouldn't be 3x it would be 1x. Common sense.

You have a lot of projection issues. Your arguments are 100% opinion, dismissive, apples to oranges comparisons, and just generally void of objective fact. With that, I don't have to respond to any more of your subjective opinions because you've yet to address my points in an objective manner. When you do though, I'll gladly continue this discussion. Until then, continue to complain about a unique challenge in the game. <-- The funny part is you call that statement false, yet you yourself have stated that it is the only event that threatens a colonist without an alarm... which would in fact make it unique... and the fact you seem to struggle with it by definition makes it a challenge... the fact others not just myself have found adequate solutions to this issue seems to skate past you too.

[TheMeInTeam]

You have an inability to separate your opinion from objective fact.

That's an...ironic position to take.  It's not useful to the discussion though so moving on.

The fact that I haven't lost a colonist since Alpha 15 to a predator hunting them is just as relevant as the fact that you seem to be incapable of not losing a colonist to hunting predators.

No, it is irrelevant because the possibility of keeping colonists alive is not the primary or even a top part of the arguments presented against the mechanic.  Continuing to say it and not address the arguments presented is intellectually rude.

You are arguing against points not actually made here, instead of addressing the points that have been made.

Another objective fact: Predators hunting colonists is a unique challenge in the game.

If you will concede that making your colonists need to be manually ordered to eat and having to manually turn down the cooler ever six hours in-game would also be "unique" (or equivalent) "challenges" in the game, I'll leave this go as preference.

If you would not be willing to endure such mechanics, your stance is irrational.

Your inability to address the points and just dismissing them because you don't agree with them speaks volumes of the shallowness of your argument.

I'm not the one doing this.  The evidence is that I've already repeatedly pointed out the flaws of your solution and how it contrasts with actual gameplay in Rimworld.  Multiple arguments I've made still aren't addressed now.

The fact we don't need another alarm because I've presented MULTIPLE solutions to your "problem" is not a red herring. Nice try though.

Mods and mundane, strategy-less execution are not viable solutions when the suggestion is to make the vanilla game play better.

And no, the fact you can't leave the game on 3x speed forever and expect to be fine is not straw. There is a reason you can easily shift between speeds, pause at any moment, and why 1x speed exists. 1x speed is the speed the game is designed and balanced around. 2x and 3x speed was put in to give alternatives to the default speed. If 3x speed was what the game was balanced around, it wouldn't be 3x it would be 1x. Common sense.

Speed 2 and 3 are not designed to be false choices.  The reason notifications and alerts exist is to signal the player that they need to slow down and deal with something.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that there is no need for these alerts because you can easily shift speeds and look for them manually.  If anybody applies your stated rationale consistently to the game, the conclusion is that alerts shouldn't exist.

You've yet to demonstrate a rational, self-consistently applied reason that animals hunting colonists is special in not needing an alert (again, unless you're willing to need to feed pawns manually and such which have identical gameplay burdens in-practice and identical historical justification).  Not just you though, nobody has including Tynan.  That's why this is a bad mechanic.

You have a lot of projection issues. Your arguments are 100% opinion, dismissive, apples to oranges comparisons, and just generally void of objective fact. With that, I don't have to respond to any more of your subjective opinions because you've yet to address my points in an objective manner.

More ironic anti-discussion.  That you're saying this rather than quoting points and addressing where they are flawed should raise a red flag.

The funny part is you call that statement false, yet you yourself have stated that it is the only event that threatens a colonist without an alarm

The false part is that it is a challenge.  The examples of manually feeding colonists and turning down the coolers are examples of gameplay-equivalent potential mechanics that require identical attention and constant user input...but confer no meaningful strategic consideration to the game and serve only to slow down the rate at which the player encounters meaningful decisions.  They are not apples-to-oranges comparisons, handling them is identical to manually hunting down predators...slow down the game, find people with low hunger, and give them food or they die or overheat when you don't turn down the cooler again.

Quoting "stuff" then backing into nonsense like "it's opinion, dismissive, and void of fact" is something anybody can do, regardless of what is said.  It is intellectually rude and disppointing to see it repeated.  It's hard to be more "dismissive" than ignoring arguments outright, and I'm not the one doing that.

[Bozobub]

Ugh.

It's this simple, people:  There's no real reason not to add at least a notification of the event; if nothing else for consistency's sake.  New players are NOT going to expect the lack of such, especially, considering notifications (if not red "alarms" that force you to 1x) exist for *every other* possible event that can harm your colonists.  Every.  Single.  One.  Just because there are currently reasonably effective workarounds has absolutely no bearing on whether some kind of notification is appropriate.

On the other hand, no, I DO NOT run the game mostly at 1x, quite the opposite, yet as I (and others) note, I don't find the lack of notification all that onerous, since it just about never happens.  It's not like I'm constantly scanning for predators, not even close; every so often, I look — generally while doing something else — and say, "Crap, there's a lot of predators eating my hunting stock!"  I then mark *all* of them for taming or hunting.

The problem is overinflated, as well as the overheated negative response.  Silly hyperbole destroys debate, people.  Can it.

[TheMeInTeam]

Incidence might depend strongly on biome (predator ratio) and to a lesser extent maybe difficulty (hunger rate?  Not sure if difficulty affects for wildlife).

Last run on temperate biome I had only tamed animals targeted by predators (though they were frequently un-savable even though they were supposedly with 10+ others following trainer), in contrast to a Tundra run where I had colonists targeted 3x inside 2 years despite hunting/taming much less.

I suspect ice sheet is the worst but since you need to play breaking tactics to survive there as a tribe I rarely dial that one up.

[grrizo]

Countries with boarders who expand and contract their empires through conquest.

This could be amazing.

[Bozobub]

Countries with boarders who expand and contract their empires through conquest.

This could be amazing.

Agreed, although that would start pushing RimWorld to be a much different type of game, as well; I think you'll start seeing pushback from other players.

[Panzer]

I dont really want to see countries and stuff, that wont fit rimworld, more like a sphere of influence, say, this here is the outlander town, around it you re less likely to get ambushed, more likely to meet friendles etc...

Since trade is a big part of rimworld, I would like to see some depth there, and relations as well, e.g. we re the League of Hisin, we produce drugs, you get drugs cheap here but that means drugs dont sell for much as well, but potatoes are contraband here, they sell at a high price but maybe you get caught selling and get thrown into prison, your colony then has to pay a fine or free the people by force, but then relations take a dive etc... stuff like that.

And please bring back the factions hating each other at times, it is kinda boring to see outlanders and tribes and then the pirates that are the stereotypical bad guys. Maybe have something like a pirate run black market, you get rare stuff more frequently there at a higher price, but dealing with pirates decreases relations with everyone else etc...

[TheMeInTeam]

I would definitely like to see more faction variance, possibly more factions.  Also more consistent good types with some as opposed to others and factions disliking you based on your interactions with others.

Another option to explore there player colony optionally becoming a satellite of sufficiently nearby faction, but doing so constrains external trade/relations somehow while making internal exchange rates favorable and assistance (including them occasionally asking yours, not doing it can lose status).

[seerdecker]

Personally I refuse to play Rimworld without the animal hunting alert mod. See
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=17094.0
It is listed as being compatible with alpha 17.

I'm not going to argue why the lack of warning is a problem. TheMeInTeam already made a compelling point. I will however state that the "I didn't lose a pawn since two versions ago" argument is aggravating. So, you didn't lose a pawn. Great. Other people did. Repeatedly. You just got lucky.

Losing pawns because the UI sucks is infuriating.