Factions going to be improved in future, or is what we got now it?

Started by corestandeven, October 28, 2017, 12:06:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

corestandeven

On Steam there is the following message dated 24 October: "the game is maturing and it's coming to the right time to make the content final. In addition, closing these will free up more time for us to work on the game itself."

You can interpret this two ways: 1) postively, in that the devs will be focussing and improving what is in the game now. So as factions are in game now the devs will work on improving faction mechanics in the future, or 2) negatively, in that the devs think that factions are 'mature enough' and will not be spending any time on new content associated with factions.

IMO currently I think faction mechanics are the most lacking part of the game, but have they have the most potential to make mid to late games interesting. They also enhance the experience when traveling over the map. Other members have offered great suggestions in the forum about this. Some are very ambitous and I do not think are techincally possible, some change the nature/lore of the game too much that I think the devs (and players) would reject them, but some ideas are just sensible and would really enhance the current half-baked experience. Currently there seems little benefit if a faction is +1 or +100 relations, and little difference if a faction is -100 or -1 relations. Essentially it boils down to enemy and non-enemy.

The reason I'm pessimistic that the devs have no intention of reforming faction mechanics is there were no significant changes in A17 to factions, and there seems none listed in A18 (that I saw), and this message on Steam seems to suggests a winding down of the Rimworld project.

Anyone know if anything is planned by the devs for factions? Do you share my concerns or do you think faction mechanics are good enough?

Bozobub

What I think is that it's a huge time sink amongst MANY competing time sinks, and the Rimworld devs can only address so many of these *and* still roll out a product to pay the bills in a timely manner.  I DO NOT want to see Rimworld become another failed EA release, thenkyew.

There are quite a few way Rimworld can (and probably should) change, but there simply may not be time for all of them.  Remember also, even after an official "1.0" release, the game can still change and grow.  But they still have to get to 1.0 for the game to be ultimately successful.
Thanks, belgord!

Goldenpotatoes

I believe the main idea with current development was that Alpha was for mainly content additions, with Beta going to be revolving around refining and beefing up what is already there instead. Pretty much everything in the alpha builds has been somewhat base-line content with a good framework to build up from and flesh out once all your major features are in.

I know that he's talked about factions before and how things like interacting with them are pretty placeholder, so I wouldn't worry too much until Beta hits and there's still no sign of changes going on around it.

Limdood

I would be willing to bet money, even giving odds, that some version of the hospitality mod will be implemented eventually into the base game...as Tynan gets around to picking the mod apart and sorting the features, balancing them against the rest of the game, scaling them, and choosing what he wants in.

Pretty much every aspect of the game WILL get fleshed out more....people whine that this game has been in alpha forever, but it has been developing, consistently and innovatively, the whole time...we're STILL getting brand new features, and each new alpha no only adds new giant features, but it also adds big amounts of functionality to existing systems, adds little features to flesh out previously added big features, balances some of the more recently added features, and fixes countless bugs.


corestandeven

Quote from: Goldenpotatoes on October 28, 2017, 04:16:20 PM
I believe the main idea with current development was that Alpha was for mainly content additions, with Beta going to be revolving around refining and beefing up what is already there instead. Pretty much everything in the alpha builds has been somewhat base-line content with a good framework to build up from and flesh out once all your major features are in.

I know that he's talked about factions before and how things like interacting with them are pretty placeholder, so I wouldn't worry too much until Beta hits and there's still no sign of changes going on around it.

Good point. I had forgotten that there would be a beta phase to be honest. My concern was more that I do not think factions need 'refining', but actually do need more content as the interactions are just too basic at present. I agree with you though that the current system does serve as a placeholder, so hopefully will be more fleshed out in the future.

Do you have the article where Tynan talked about his visions/ambitions for factions? I thought he would put his thoughts on his own forum, but I'm getting the sense he is more active elsewhere (twitter, reddit?).

Quote from: Limdood on October 28, 2017, 06:53:40 PM
Pretty much every aspect of the game WILL get fleshed out more....people whine that this game has been in alpha forever, but it has been developing, consistently and innovatively, the whole time...we're STILL getting brand new features, and each new alpha no only adds new giant features, but it also adds big amounts of functionality to existing systems, adds little features to flesh out previously added big features, balances some of the more recently added features, and fixes countless bugs.

I dont disagree with your statement. I'm one who actually quite happy with the game being in Alpha, as it does mean more new content each time, though I guess that cannot go on forever. My only concern was that factions havent had any new features or fleshing out in A17 (as far as I recall), and there is no sign of any amendments in A18 (not even minor tweaks), so I was concerned that faction mechanics were deemed good enough by the devs. It would be a shame if factions were left as is, as I think this side of game has massive potential.   

asanbr

I agree with your general thoughts but this is wrong.

Quote from: corestandeven on October 28, 2017, 12:06:14 PM
Currently there seems little benefit if a faction is +1 or +100 relations, and little difference if a faction is -100 or -1 relations. Essentially it boils down to enemy and non-enemy.


Reputation matters a lot.

When you get above 60 or 70 somewhere, the price of trade caravans drops from 1100 to 700 silver. That makes a huge difference.

With high rep, you have a lot of room to call in military reinforcements, which costs 25  and then sometimes 5 per dead ally.

High rep also gives you a lot of room to play with thrumbos on trade caravans, or manhunters, and other things where economically you can gain a lot by losing some rep short term and then buying it back with money gained.

Being able to do all this without them going hostile is a big thing. If you're at 5 reputation with a faction, you can't do that.

corestandeven

Fair play, I take it your point there is some value in getting better relations, assuming you request trades (I personnally dont as once you get orbital trade beacon and comms station it is more economical to sell to traders imo). Forgot about military reinforcements, but by the time you have a really high rep with a faction I tend to not need assistance anyway as i have the ability to fend off raids.

In terms of negative relations I do not see any difference between -1 to -100 relations, unless you tell me otherwise? Do you get attacked more if have worse relations? Does a faction who hates you more throw more troops at you compareds with one who mildly dislikes you? Are factions who midly hate you happy to steal some stuff from you before leaving, compared with those who'll only settle for killing all your colonists? Do those who hate you more attack harder before giving up? Can you persuade factions who only slightly hate you to not raid you on that occasion? If you are under seige can you reason with the faction to not attack? etc. Unless you tell me differently i'm unaware that any of this is in the game and there is no difference between have -1 relations or -100. 

I for one would like more for faction mechanics. I think perhaps the potential is there, but it is under developed. I'd also in the future like Tyran to explore relations between factions. I would love to set one faction against another, and for that to actually mean something in game.

Limdood

Quote from: corestandeven on November 02, 2017, 02:07:33 PM

In terms of negative relations I do not see any difference between -1 to -100 relations, unless you tell me otherwise? Do you get attacked more if have worse relations? Does a faction who hates you more throw more troops at you compareds with one who mildly dislikes you? Are factions who midly hate you happy to steal some stuff from you before leaving, compared with those who'll only settle for killing all your colonists? Do those who hate you more attack harder before giving up? Can you persuade factions who only slightly hate you to not raid you on that occasion? If you are under seige can you reason with the faction to not attack? etc. Unless you tell me differently i'm unaware that any of this is in the game and there is no difference between have -1 relations or -100. 
at a certain point in negative relations, the faction will no longer talk to you on the comm system.  Otherwise -20? no big deal...send them some silver via the comm system and poof, friendly.

Also measures distance until friendly, which i guess technically makes little sense...."these guys have been trying to get on our good side, but its just not QUITE enough yet - SEND 50 SOLDIERS!"...."hmmm, they killed 49, but patched up one armless soldier with one leg back...i guess we're friends now"

regardless of how much sense it makes, -80 means you're still quite some distance off, whereas -10 means you have a couple different solutions for quickly ending a feud.

asanbr

Quote from: corestandeven on November 02, 2017, 02:07:33 PM
Fair play, I take it your point there is some value in getting better relations, assuming you request trades (I personnally dont as once you get orbital trade beacon and comms station it is more economical to sell to traders imo). Forgot about military reinforcements, but by the time you have a really high rep with a faction I tend to not need assistance anyway as i have the ability to fend off raids.

Trade ships are more economical, problem in my games has been that they never show up. They are so uncommon and so random that I can't rely on them for anything. They are a nice boost when they happen to show up and happen to be the right type.

But if I really need a bionic leg and I have some scyther blades and thrumbo horn lying around (most common scenario for requesting caravans), I'm just going to gamble and ask for an exotic trader. Worst case I can get rid of the things and buy something or end up with some silver. Best case I get the bionics I need.

I played a lot in A12 and back then there was a constant stream of trade ships. I think it changed in A14 but I didn't play much again until A17 to really see the difference. I also don't know if biome matters. In my latest games I have found an improvement by building multiple bases, since trade ships will arrive to each of them so it more or less linearly increases the number of trade ships. And sending stuff between bases is cheap with drop pods.

I'd love to see how you play with regards to raids. I call in military assistance all the time, to save my pawns from fighting. And I get a lot of raids that I wouldn't be able to handle well without.


klun222

Quote from: Bozobub on October 28, 2017, 01:56:13 PM
What I think is that it's a huge time sink amongst MANY competing time sinks, and the Rimworld devs can only address so many of these *and* still roll out a product to pay the bills in a timely manner.  I DO NOT want to see Rimworld become another failed EA release, thenkyew.

There are quite a few way Rimworld can (and probably should) change, but there simply may not be time for all of them.  Remember also, even after an official "1.0" release, the game can still change and grow.  But they still have to get to 1.0 for the game to be ultimately successful.

Do you seriously think rimworld will ever get out of beta? This wont happen, If a lot of people loose interest, Luden will simply abandon the game.