Animal is hunting colonist!

[TheMeInTeam]

No, YOU can see them.
You need to separate what you can see from what the colonist can "see".
This is a common problem with games that lack a fog or war mechanic.

Pawns can see at least sniper range.  Animals can target from further than that.  If we're going to use this metric, it needs an actual mechanic in the game.

Being more dangerous and capable of revenge doesn't change that when animals start hunting stealthily then their prey will have less chance of spotting them.

It does imply we're making up rules as we go.  Colonists can't see inbound raids either, but we get notifications for those long before they're in colonist "line of sight", whatever it supposedly is, unless you're conceding they can see the animals after all.  They can even notice infestations in enclosed mountains across the map...how do animals fit "thematically" into a framework where notifications for quality of life are the norm?

I hold that the implementation is self-inconsistent, and that conclusion is based on evidence.  You can show me I'm wrong though: list a set of standards, independent of specific mechanics, that guides which in-game things merit notification vs not.  In other words, what criteria would allow a 3rd person to read it and conclude the present implementation?

Most animals can't do serious injury to a colonist if you have backup even remotely close by.
Ive had my colonists hunted frequently, and outside of a bear or similar, Ive had a 100% survival rate with minimal to no permanent injury despite REACTING LATE.

Trained animal isn't even possible consistently, let alone practical.  Having pawns "never go out alone w/o backup" implies speed 1 micromanagement that amounts to pixel hunting stray pawns instead of the predators.  This game is not designed around draft control of pawns all the time.

Your "thematically" line of reasoning would hold for making players order pawns to eat manually (and not notifying when they're hungry), making temperature ambiguous, hiding toxic fallout, or blocking notification of inbound sieges.  IE, you are not giving reasonable constraining justification for the animal hunting mechanic within the framework of Rimworld; you are using a "universally applicable" line of reasoning that would justify tons of nonsense mechanics.  This is not a sound defense of the mechanic in question; it's not an actual defense of any particular mechanic to claim it is "thematically appropriate so it can do nonsense".

[erdrik]

Pawns can see at least sniper range.

Big whoop. Seeing farther != seeing better.
Also doesn't change that notifications are based on what the designer thinks YOU should be seeing.

Animals can target from further than that.

Abstracted:
Scent.

Colonists can't see inbound raids either, but we get notifications for those long before they're in colonist "line of sight"

Without Drop Pods:
Abstracted:
Days and weeks of enemy travel before they get to your colony, and during that time the chance of a stranger telling the colony(via radio). Remember: a fleeing slave can contact your colony while being chased.

With Drop Pods/Crashed Ship:
Screeching sound of the Drop Pods/Crashed Ship.

They can even notice infestations in enclosed mountains...

Abstracted:
Days and weeks of hearing them dig but not knowing exactly where they will emerge until they do.

It does imply we're making up rules as we go.

Congratulations. You've just described EVERY GAME EVER.

Trained animal isn't even possible consistently, let alone practical.  Having pawns "never go out alone w/o backup" implies speed 1 micromanagement that amounts to pixel hunting stray pawns instead of the predators.  This game is not designed around draft control of pawns all the time.

Incorrect.
You either don't know about the "follow while doing field work" option, or yer trolling me.
Drafting is not necessary. Also I play at a minimum of speed 2, unless the game FORCES me into speed 1.
Options:
Hunter on attack mode, accompanying Pet with just Obedience on "follow while doing field work" mode.
Hunter on flee mode, accompanying Pet with just Obedience on "follow while doing field work" mode.

[cursedrena]

This hasn't affected me too much in game. I've never lost a colonist to a hungry animal so far. I'm pretty neutral on if this gets added or not. If it does, I'd rather the alert come a few moments after they decide to hunt someone. That way if they're any amount of distance away and not already giving your pawn a handshake with it's mouth, time will freeze while it's a few feet away and you get the chance to fire at it first. I do feel time should freeze regardless though when a pawn or tamed animal is attack by a hunting animal or a second before the attack occurs.

At some point a realism mode would probably be interesting, where you outright don't get any alerts your colonists can't see (with or without fog of war since you are a godlike presence in the world, fog of war for more realism, without it for more viewing pleasure and if you see things while looking around well lucky you)

[Slimy_Slider]

The game already warns you when an animal decides to take revenge or during a manhunter event. The difference between this and 'animal is hunting a colonist' is extremely minimal. If these events have warnings and notifications, then why shouldn't hunted colonists trigger warning messages as well?

[A Friend]

It's extensive micro management with very little pay off. Something that can be solved easily by just putting a warning on it like everything else. It won't diminish the danger as the animal will likely catch the pawn anyways but a warning would be enough of a chance for the player to try.

Put aside realism and put gameplay first please. It's not fun when it happens and it's not fun to prepare for.

[erdrik]

The game already warns you when an animal decides to take revenge or during a manhunter event. The difference between this and 'animal is hunting a colonist' is extremely minimal. If these events have warnings and notifications, then why shouldn't hunted colonists trigger warning messages as well?

The difference, as previously discussed, is that during a revenge attack the colonist in question is already focused on and targeting the animal in question. The animal is not trying to be stealthy, and the colonist can see it coming.

When being hunted the animal is not enraged and is trying to be stealthy(just like most animals would try to be when hunting), and the colonist is focused on another task.

Since there is currently no fog of war, or dedicated detection system, it is likely the lack of notification for hunting animals is an abstraction of their stealthiness.

[erdrik]

It's extensive micro management with very little pay off. Something that can be solved easily by just putting a warning on it like everything else. It won't diminish the danger as the animal will likely catch the pawn anyways but a warning would be enough of a chance for the player to try.

I disagree. The solution is not to remove the idea of stealthy animals.
And animals can hunt a target from across the map, giving a warning for when it decides to hunt a colonist would mean the longest possible reaction time. You only think the animal would still catch your pawn because at the moment you don't find out about it until the colonist is already being attacked. (meaning unless you are actively watching their "hunting patterns" then you don't get to see when they start approaching and as a result don't know how long they moved to get to your pawn. I know this because I recently did just that. Animals will move across the entire map if pathing to their target necessitates it.)
You would need to have the warning wait until the animal is close enough to get at the colonist regardless of your reaction, but then why bother when the colonist taking damage IS that warning?

Put aside realism and put gameplay first please. It's not fun when it happens and it's not fun to prepare for.

I take it you don't like assigning/planing tasks for our colonists?
Taming and training animals?
Because that is literally all it takes to prepare.
Micromanagement is not necessary, and at worst it is no more difficult that a Raid.

[Lowkey1987]

It's extensive micro management with very little pay off. Something that can be solved easily by just putting a warning on it like everything else. It won't diminish the danger as the animal will likely catch the pawn anyways but a warning would be enough of a chance for the player to try.

I disagree. The solution is not to remove the idea of stealthy animals.
And animals can hunt a target from across the map, giving a warning for when it decides to hunt a colonist would mean the longest possible reaction time. You only think the animal would still catch your pawn because at the moment you don't find out about it until the colonist is already being attacked. (meaning unless you are actively watching their "hunting patterns" then you don't get to see when they start approaching and as a result don't know how long they moved to get to your pawn. I know this because I recently did just that. Animals will move across the entire map if pathing to their target necessitates it.)
You would need to have the warning wait until the animal is close enough to get at the colonist regardless of your reaction, but then why bother when the colonist taking damage IS that warning?

Put aside realism and put gameplay first please. It's not fun when it happens and it's not fun to prepare for.

I take it you don't like assigning/planing tasks for our colonists?
Taming and training animals?
Because that is literally all it takes to prepare.
Micromanagement is not necessary, and at worst it is no more difficult that a Raid.

I think most people dont like the animals. Yeah...we can do simple things against it. And in the endgame there isnt any problem, expect: You didnt do anything.
But... it is frustating for the most of the player base. Better do something entertaining.

[erdrik]

I think most people dont like the animals. Yeah...we can do simple things against it. And in the endgame there isnt any problem, expect: You didnt do anything.
But... it is frustating for the most of the player base. Better do something entertaining.

Im not against adding to or modifying something to improve it.
Im all for a more robust detection/stealth system.

But I am fully against removing a perfectly valid event, and this whole line of discussion was born from the resulting suggestion that animals shouldn't be stealthy while hunting. Being challenged by stealth is not unfun.

[A Friend]

I disagree. The solution is not to remove the idea of stealthy animals.
And animals can hunt a target from across the map, giving a warning for when it decides to hunt a colonist would mean the longest possible reaction time. You only think the animal would still catch your pawn because at the moment you don't find out about it until the colonist is already being attacked. (meaning unless you are actively watching their "hunting patterns" then you don't get to see when they start approaching and as a result don't know how long they moved to get to your pawn. I know this because I recently did just that. Animals will move across the entire map if pathing to their target necessitates it.)

I wasn't aware of this as my only experiences with animal attacks is either they're already half-way to being eaten alive, or I get lucky and somehow notice a wolf coming way too close to a colonist. In that case, I'll adjust my suggestion to merely giving a warning when the predators are close enough to the pawn to still retain the event's danger while giving you a chance to protect them.

You would need to have the warning wait until the animal is close enough to get at the colonist regardless of your reaction, but then why bother when the colonist taking damage IS that warning?

Because I'm given the time and chance to potentially save my pawn from permanent damage or death. Which would be less frustrating than having the pawn die because I didn't check the map every 5 minutes for predators. If you believe that a warning and time to react is useless and will unlikely change the outcome then why oppose adding it? It doesn't negate the danger of the event, and still remains true to it's intention; that being a deadly animal attack.

I take it you don't like assigning/planing tasks for our colonists?
Taming and training animals?
Because that is literally all it takes to prepare.
Micromanagement is not necessary, and at worst it is no more difficult that a Raid.

- I manually assign my work tab and use various mods that further expands and complicates it. I'm no stranger to management.
- Biomes, I settle in have little to no animals in them that I can usually train, so animals for me are out of the options.

Micromanaging a raid is different from micromanaging animal attacks as you describe. Raids are a one time thing: they come, they attack, they stop. Raids are challenges sent to test the player's tactics, ingenuity, and planning.

Predators are different: they attack. They don't come and they don't leave. Technically, they arrive as well but unless you're willing to check the map every few seconds, you will basically just assume that there's always wolfs outside.
Of course, like anything in the game, it can be countered by being prepared. The problem is that the danger is always present and that one fuck up will instantly remove you of a valuable colonist. Coupled with absolutely one feasible counter (Animal training, I'm not gonna count pausing the game and scouring the map of predators, putting turrets everywhere and drafting a pawn to babysit hunters) and you've got the recipe for salty players.

I think most people dont like the animals. Yeah...we can do simple things against it. And in the endgame there isnt any problem, expect: You didnt do anything.
But... it is frustating for the most of the player base. Better do something entertaining.

Let's see what everyone thinks.

But I am fully against removing a perfectly valid event, and this whole line of discussion was born from the resulting suggestion that animals shouldn't be stealthy while hunting. Being challenged by stealth is not unfun.

I feel more like being punished by stealth instead of challenged by it.

"Don't have any animals to protect you? Too bad."

"Unwilling to scour the map for every predator out there and eliminating them one by one even though they have endless numbers and you could instead be using your time having fun building your base? Stop being a casual."

I'd be less salty if there are more options to dealing with this than those two. But in the meanwhile, a warning would be much appreciated.

[TheMeInTeam]

Big whoop. Seeing farther != seeing better.
Also doesn't change that notifications are based on what the designer thinks YOU should be seeing.

The whole point of this thread is to demonstrate that the designer made a mistake.  To be expected, since the designer is human and in the big scheme of things, this is a comparatively minor one.

Abstracted:
Scent.

Disingenuous:
Inconsistently applied standards of abstraction.

Incorrect.
You either don't know about the "follow while doing field work" option, or yer trolling me.

I select third option: access to trained animals is not consistently possible, practical from a food perspective, or available to a sufficient number of colonists.  A tribe operating on tundra isn't going to have the resources to train up 7 dogs to slap 1/colonist they have early on...same for less-useful, non-hauling animals.

Late game you can of course, but once your wealth is that high you're not needing to leave base much anymore regardless.

But I am fully against removing a perfectly valid event, and this whole line of discussion was born from the resulting suggestion that animals shouldn't be stealthy while hunting. Being challenged by stealth is not unfun.

If this was a "perfectly valid event", you, the devs, and every single other person defending it wouldn't duck that request for criteria as to why it's held to a different standard than other game implementations.

"I hold that the implementation is self-inconsistent, and that conclusion is based on evidence.  You can show me I'm wrong though: list a set of standards, independent of specific mechanics, that guides which in-game things merit notification vs not.  In other words, what criteria would allow a 3rd person to read it and conclude the present implementation?"

In truly strong design --> implementation, the game is self-consistent.  The standards it uses create appropriate player expectations to what the game wants them to do, and these standards are consistent enough that they don't screw the player arbitrarily for following them.  Tynan has expressed consistency in the framework of Rimworld as a goal in the past, and this is not a mechanic that is consistent to how the game handles other threats.  Short of making pretend pseudo-arguments about "animal realism with animals we later imply don't exist in reality because they're genetically modified all while ignoring the same standards of realism in every other game mechanic", there's scant little rationale as to why the present implementation should be an exception to the notification standards the game uses otherwise.

[Lowkey1987]

Thte arguments of both sides begin to repeat. 

[A Friend]

Because no one is willing to accept a compromise. It's either have a notification or don't.
Our points will continue to echo and clash unless the developer decides on a verdict.

But in the meanwhile, I believe the majority of players do want notifications.

[Britnoth]

Because no one is willing to accept a compromise. It's either have a notification or don't.
Our points will continue to echo and clash unless the developer decides on a verdict.

But in the meanwhile, I believe the majority of players do want notifications.

The game already warns you when they begin to hunt. The only difference is in the quality of the user interface and the gameplay experience resulting from it.

That is why Hunting Alert is listed as a UI mod, and not a gameplay mod.

Plus, there already IS a mechanic to simulate a 'stealthy' animal - the stun it inflicts on its prey when it attacks.

Any game mechanic that relies on the reaction times or attention span of the player in a game that can be paused at any time seems... contradictory.