I Call Bullsh*t

[RemingtonRyder]

I think the main problem with the conduit overload event is that there's no chance for it to fail. If you have some kind of electrical network containing conduits, it will always happen. So the outcome is mostly the same.

It's a case of, well, it's simple. And simple ideas can work for creating stories, but complicated ideas can be better.

For example, instead of having one overload point on a big network, there could be several, and the amount of damage could be divided between them. On a small network, the overload might be handled better by the conduit, and fail to produce flames of doom.

This sort of nuance means that it feels less like you're being screwed by the game, and more like 'if I make big and complicated electrical networks, I had better be prepared to maintain them.'

[Boboid]

stop reading everything with a negative voice. which you are doing because of your point by point rebuttal

Sigh.. I'm trying to explain this to you as calmly and kindly as possible in order to help you understand the flaws in your argument and to further your understanding of the subject matter. I'm genuinely sorry if you feel as though I've been condescending or attacking you as that wasn't my intention, you're doing a poor job of interpreting my various forms of emphasis but that in of itself is my fault.

... "it wasn't worth doing even then" thats your view ...

This is less subjective than you're making it out to be. Total circumnavigation of Zzzt events(which is what I was referring to in the first place) required you to use exclusively consistent sources of power (Geothermal/Generators, or an impractical number of wind turbines which I'm going to ignore for the sake of sensibility), the cost in resources and the value of these are both high, as is the manpower requirement of Wood(And now chemfuel) generators.

The result is objectively extremely inefficient due to the cost/manpower/resources and associated raid size increases compared to the comparatively trivial -and completely controllable- small fires.

Its a figure of speech it. Just my observation and opinion you yet again don't need to share my view.

The trouble is that.. again this isn't as subjective as you're making it out to be. You're arguing that changes to the Zzzt event are a slippery slope that will lead to a less desirable gaming experience. That's at best a flimsy argument and at worst deliberately divisive.

I genuinely liked the old Zzzt. It limited battery size, provided a valid use for switches (backup batteries)
---
These are still just as useful. ect.

My original point which I'll reiterate here was that the new Zzzzt event functions almost identically to the old one. Your original point was that it is NOW so harmless that it no longer provides all of the counter play that the original did. I tried my hardest to explain to you why this was not the case by explaining to you that the exact differences mechanically. 

---

At this point you essentially devolve into claiming that I'm trolling and shouting at you rather than having a discussion with you which apparently in your mind means that I'm automatically incorrect and have nothing to contribute.

I genuinely don't know how you came to this conclusion but I'm sorry that's the case. I really would've liked to have been able to continue a civil conversation about this using logic and reason.

I hope you change your mind :/

---

I think the main problem with the conduit overload event is that there's no chance for it to fail. If you have some kind of electrical network containing conduits, it will always happen. So the outcome is mostly the same.

It's a case of, well, it's simple. And simple ideas can work for creating stories, but complicated ideas can be better.

For example, instead of having one overload point on a big network, there could be several, and the amount of damage could be divided between them. On a small network, the overload might be handled better by the conduit, and fail to produce flames of doom.

This sort of nuance means that it feels less like you're being screwed by the game, and more like 'if I make big and complicated electrical networks, I had better be prepared to maintain them.'

I suppose that depends on how you define "Chance to fail".
If you insulate all of your conduits within 1 wide corridors fires can only spread as far as you choose to let them. In fact I think it's theoretically possible to prevent all but a 1x1 fire by alternating doors and open conduits in hallways like that.

I agree that the event is simple, but complexity isn't always the same as quality. A squirrel going mad and attacking you is simple but it can generate an interesting story anyway. As can a small electrical fire which has unintended consequences as a result of poor preparation.

When it comes to nuance though... I feel the level of complexity outweighs the benefits beyond what already exists. As it stands if you store large quantities of electricity you had better be prepared to maintain them. Because 6 batteries worth of electrical fire in a poor location is a fairly serious consequence.

[RemingtonRyder]

Well I guess I'll make a mod and see how well it does.

Assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it.

[TheMeInTeam]

The fact that you group these two events without acknowledging the glaring difference in agency between the two is perplexing.  You've yet to even address the agency argument.

Like I replied to you in the A18 unstable thread, natural disasters don't need to have agency as must. Volcano eruptions, Tsunamis, Earthquakes...will never have the perfect 100% defense. In Japan we have shelters in mountainous zones, but even then, getting to the shelters may not always be possible...some people will just die anyways. We also have tsunami walls...that...still didn't help the city of Fukushima. Earthquakes are constant, much like typhoons in spring/summer...but still... there will be casualties....  AND, a lot of destruction.

You don't like a tornado appearing on top of a colonist...well tell that to the hikers on mount Ontake...it blew off ...ON THEM...nothing they could do... Fukushima citizens...drawned... all sea water over them...sure some tried to swim... I saw the raw pictures before media censorship so I have a good notion about these matters.

So you're going to duck the agency/gameplay consideration and stick with selective usages of realism in gameplay terms as convenient till the end?  Quoted post is intellectually rude; I present an argument, and you ignore it to argue something else.

Unavoidable disasters as fluke events killing people have no place in this game, just like sniper rifles that reach from outside the map (more realistic than current snipers btw) have no place in this game.  We're not modeling reality, we're interacting with mechanics.  Disagreeing with that challenges nearly every Rimworld mechanic at the fundamental level.  To do that, you'd need a good reason to single out specific things.

An event with literally no agency is not a mechanic, and nothing you wrote even begins to refute that.  Can you refute that or not?

I don't think you want to make the case that Rimworld should be globally realistic.  Given that, why are you insisting on using realism selectively with regards to one mechanic interaction?  Either be self-consistent and roll with 90%+ of tornadoes doing nothing to stone walls and having them not even form in many places (realism) or work in the framework of mechanics with agency (gameplay).

Saying that tornadoes should be devastating because they are in reality then being okay with them forming in "large hills" or all of them acting like F4/F5 is *incoherent*.  It's irrational reasoning because it self-contradicts.

[Yoshida Keiji]

This is all very simple, really. Everybody here who said "no" to your Agency theme, is because we want RimWorld to be "not all mechanic". We go to reference to real life because "Life, isn't fair". "Only in movies the good guys win". In a game were there's a good chance your colony won't survive, making it hard is what makes this game interesting. Otherwise, people would go play FarmVille. There's really no need for you to hype about comparison with real life and Tornado. This is the first event we get of this scale now, but we may pretty much soon, get all the other remaining natural disasters in future Alphas, so it looks "reasonable" to see Tynan putting Tornados in all biomes, regardless of not happening in real life. The reason for this development decision is simply "testing". Once Tynan manages to work out all real life natural disasters, then he can start sorting them based in geographical occurrences, but for now, since there's only Tornado, it will trigger every where.

I don't see why we should all enclose ourselves in a fantasy bubble. Natural disasters happen everywhere, we will mourn the dead but still life goes on... Japan is soooo used to earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis...but that doesn't cause the Japanese to "flee the country". Mount Fuji was predicted to split the main island into two and even with all the technology top level, we hadn't gone to make reinforced cables to wire both extremes so that in the catastrophic day Fujisan explodes, we will be able to wrap the country like shoe laces. America has the SDI idea but you just can't fend off all missiles due to too many enemies by using a nation wide dome like shield.

Some things can be protected from, but not all.

[TheMeInTeam]

This is all very simple, really. Everybody here who said "no" to your Agency theme, is because we want RimWorld to be "not all mechanic". We go to reference to real life because "Life, isn't fair".

For this rationale to work, you *must* have self-consistent reasoning to treat one game interaction with "life isn't fair" but not use it for the game in general.

You're on half a dozen posts without showing that reasoning, despite its necessity for any "realism" based argument to be coherent.

There's really no need for you to hype about comparison with real life and Tornado.

You were the one arguing based on reality, now all of a sudden using reality isn't so convenient so it's my problem?  No.

Your argument (so far) is realism without other justifying factors.  When the game state you like contradicts that reasoning, it's a problem with your argument, not mine.

I want the mechanic to work in gameplay terms as top priority, with as much nod to reality as that affords.  You're not clear what you want, exactly, since it's self-contradictory.

The game already has event factors dependent on region even in A17 and before, I'm not seeing any evidence for "testing" to explain this, not to mention you completely hand-waved the intensity piece.

I don't see why we should all enclose ourselves in a fantasy bubble. Natural disasters happen everywhere, we will mourn the dead but still life goes on.

We're discussing the viability of a mechanical implementation in a game, not real life disasters.  The distinction doesn't appear clear from your argument, since you only seem to want to count "real life" sometimes in Rimworld, but not other times...with no basis for when you count it vs not.

Let me make this clear:

1. Rimworld is not real life. 
2. Rimworld is not designed to be like real life, even in basic core gameplay. 
3. To use a real life justification for a mechanic in Rimworld, you MUST show why real life should matter exceptionally with regards to what you're justifying.

The argument you've presented fails #3 so badly that it's not clear where your argument even draws the line between the game and reality.

I don't need a lecture about bad natural disasters in Japan any more than I need one about Chernobyl (toxic fallout), bad earthquakes, or mass extinction events in history.  The line of reasoning makes no sense in a game that IS fantasy, where you can sponge 50+ bullets over a 2 year period and have a good chance of living (healing from them in < 2 days too...), and where a herd of 18 caribou making a dedicated effort to attack/surround a human settlement is a legit possibility.

In short:

What about natural disasters is so important that it is worth disregarding all of the fantasy in other mechanics that affords agency just to explicitly remove it?  If all you have is "realism", you have nothing for the purposes of this discussion.  Agency > reality in nearly every Rimworld mechanic (and in fact most of the game handles this  effectively including OP's mistaken complaint, which is why the few mechanics that lack it stand out), and you've established no reasoning for an exception.

[CannibarRechter]

This entire thread is quickly becoming an ungraceful pissing contest.

[TheMeInTeam]

This entire thread is quickly becoming an ungraceful pissing contest.

Considering the title and rant nature of the OP, it could be worse all things considered.  Unless we really need a thread detailing fire breaks/planning all we have left is stuff where the game actually does interact poorly with agency.

That said, when I debate something I do hold an expectation that the arguments addressed are the ones made, and would appreciate that if something is demonstrated as incoherent to either get acknowledgement of the mistake or a reason why it isn't incoherent after all.

Instead this debate got simple repetition of incoherence, nothing new on the internet but not ideal when discussing what could make the few problem mechanics there actually are in this game better.

I give it a 5/7, still better than political debates.

[sadpickle]

I can understand the frustration, but civility is always superior.

Games like Rimworld are essentially games about imposing order on disordered environments. You are given a random mess of a map, with vegetation, ruins, various threats etc. and slowly, incrementally build order out of them by reincorporating aspects of the environment into a new form. This I think is where a lot of players, myself included, get the most joy out of the game. I believe the game Banished is a good example of this, as there is little to do beyond imposing order. The amount and scale of threats are trivial compared to what Rimworld can (will) throw at you. It also makes Banished, imo, a kind of boring game.

For me the biggest threat in Rimworld (for the early and middle game) is typically raids, but those can be gamed if you know how the logic of the raiding party works. The threat can in time be reduced to almost nothing using simple "cheese" tactics. So threats that CANNOT be guarded against are vital to making the game feel exciting, especially late-game when raids are more a stream of income than a threat in of themselves. Making raids more brutal just encourages more cheesing. I think making the environment ITSELF a threat is an interesting design choice. As well it should be; as many have pointed out, even in the first world nature can and does overcome defenses that we have built against it. The simple colony that a handful of pawns throw together should not be totally impervious to nature.

I haven't played A18 but I like all this talk of hurricanes and tornadoes. It sounds like the game is improving difficulty in a dynamic way. That said I also hope there are ways to impose order against those threats, diminishing (but not nullifying) their impact. It can be frustrating if you build a colony and it is doomed to catastrophic collapse no matter HOW carefully you build it.

[RemingtonRyder]

Tornadoes are damage dealers. If you have wooden walls, they aren't going to last very long with a tornado battering them.

However, a lot of colonies leave wood walls behind once there are better building materials available.

[Mehni]

I'd say the new conduit explosion and tornadoes fall in to a different category than what we're used to: unavertable threats. While it might not be possible to prevent them from happening, you can still prepare for the consequences of them. Don't build a flammable base, and keep some resources in reserve for the rebuild.

After a while the regular threats in the game become non-issues. The short-circuit is chief among them, and they teach a valuable lesson early on. Tornadoes should keep things more interesting late-game.

[Yoshida Keiji]

Let me make this clear:

1. Rimworld is not real life. 
2. Rimworld is not designed to be like real life, even in basic core gameplay. 
3. To use a real life justification for a mechanic in Rimworld, you MUST show why real life should matter exceptionally with regards to what you're justifying.

The argument you've presented fails #3 so badly that it's not clear where your argument even draws the line between the game and reality.

No, I don't have a problem in expressing myself. It's you who is mentally blocked to "understand" what everybody else is saying in opposition to agency (and I only counted two players versus everybody else). And the very first mistake in this whole argument was to split a new thread instead of continuing posting in A18 Unstable which ended up generating two parallel discussion that need to be read both for following the topic.

Basically: What does Tornado version 3.0 looks like now (post-whinning). If you simply have a stone wall, the tornado is as threatening as a manhunting animal because it won't get inside, unless of course, it already  spawns inside. My very first tornado looked like a pinball...ball... it just bounced after touching small rooms, and this is because I was playing without an outer wall as I usually do. If I had that wall, the Tornado would have just remained outside...like any manhunter event. The only difference being that instead of wild enraged animals...its a weather danger...which means the tornado was completely reduced to "nothing". I'm playing in Tropical Swamp...and... Do I care if the outer side terrain was damaged? No, in day and a half all trees just re spawned...and there's lots of trees everywhere. Maybe I would have a turn down if I were in Ice Sheet and the only last remaining tree was blown off and I needed the wood.

Everybody else who opposes you, is basically saying we don't have a problem in having unavoidable events. It's not like a Tornado is going to fully wipe your base 100%, its gonna eat a chunk of your base if it hits (because so far all this threat is assuming it does, which it isn't true at all). And eating a bases's chunk only reduces you to defend by "funneling" instead of outer wall peak-a-boo fight style. Heck, I even make most of my battles outside my base, so anybody who is into killboxes or mountain bases look like babies to me.

Because of all this complaining by weak players, Tornado v 3.0 has just become redundant to all previous features and offers absolutely nothing new to us.

[CannibarRechter]

>  It's you who is mentally blocked

Now it's passing from pissing contest, to shit show. This whole thread should be locked.

[MajorMonotone]

>  It's you who is mentally blocked

Now it's passing from pissing contest, to shit show. This whole thread should be locked.

Can't say I'm surprised, Yoshida seems to have a superiority complex when it comes to this game, if you don't play by his standards you're a "Coward" or a "baby"

[Yoshida Keiji]

I actually have "my superiority complex" in all games, not just this one. And the reason for that is because weak players, new players or simply bad players will complain that X game is way to difficult but,...given a certain time had passed and those green players had actually learnt how to play, they will then start complaining that the game is "now" too easy...

This is a big problem with players feedback as developers need a kind of filter to determine whether or not to listen and who to listen too. Because of this, some games where I posted my same "superiority complex", actually decided to create a user group for "dedicated players" which consisted of those who show expertise.