1.0 changing the game too much?

[StoriedStorm]

Over on the steam forums I've seen some posts claiming that 1.0 is changing things for the worse and even some claiming the game is almost an entirely different game from previously?

Is there any real truth to these kind of claims? I haven't played 1.0 as I'm waiting for the full release but these comments are starting to worry me given that I've been enjoying the game as it currently is.

It's especially worrying since Tynan has apparently been trying to get people to take down their negative reviews which sets off all sorts of red flags for me.

examples: https://steamcommunity.com/id/fighter5810/recommended/294100/

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198024949177/recommended/294100/

https://steamcommunity.com/app/294100/discussions/0/1711816076703647347/

https://steamcommunity.com/app/294100/discussions/0/1711816259058276594/

[Serenity]

There are a lot of changes, but it's better to not take Steam forums too seriously. Lots of idiots there. Since there is no barrier to registration (you have an account anyways) it's far too easy for kids to just rage there.

Just play a game or two and form your own opinion. Why rely on what others say?

[Koek]

this

it's better to not take Steam forums too seriously.

and this

Why rely on what others say?

Just play a few games and give feedback on whatever changes you find positive or negative. That's how early access works.
Don't panic

[ReZpawner]

I can find atleast one legit complaint there. The whole shoehorning the players into using that ONE strategy that Tynan wants. The fun in this game was all the different ways you could play it. If you wanted to have a killbox, you could. If you didn't, nobody forced you to.

[Syrchalis]

I can find atleast one legit complaint there. The whole shoehorning the players into using that ONE strategy that Tynan wants. The fun in this game was all the different ways you could play it. If you wanted to have a killbox, you could. If you didn't, nobody forced you to.

The issue here is that you think about this argument as a player, not a developer. For Tynan it's not really about what the players do - it's about how he can balance raids and turrets among other things. Turrets need to be far more deadly and raids much weaker if killboxes are useless, but if they are the go-to tactic, then the game requires completely different numbers.

As example - we assume the game is new and turrets are used by everyone normally and they are balanced. Then someone figures out how to make a kill box and suddenly the turrets are way too strong, because you can focus all your firepower in one spot and put a switch down to make their energy drain = 0 outside of raids.
So two choices there: Make turrets useless for everyone but the ones using this tactic - or leave them be and instead make this tactic useless for the few that use it (leaving many other tactics viable).

As for the original question: No, it feels the same to me. It is different for sure, but not the general play experience, just the exact parts of it.

[ReZpawner]

Yeah, but if you balance everything perfectly, you end up with a perfectly linear and predictable game. It was the fact that 100 players would have 100 different strategies and ways to play the game that made it fun for me.

[Syrchalis]

That's ... just false. First of, perfectly balanced doesn't exist, especially taking into account the human factor. What might be the easiest, most effective tactic for one person might not be for someone else.

Secondly, even if we got close to perfect balance it would just mean A LOT of tactics are equally viable. What you're describing is the situation we had in B18 where kill box was the ultimate strategy basically 100% of the time. Now that's linear and predictable.

The reason you add randomness - and Rimworld as a lot of it - to games is so they aren't predictable or worse, calculable. The better balanced the tools of the players are the more diverse the strategies can become. If half the tools are obsolete because they are too bad to be used effectively you have a lot less variety.

[Crow_T]

I think people are being overly dramatic, unless by "changing" they mean "improving."  IMO the vanilla experience is  getting to the point where I don't think about adding mods when I play (but I still will when the dust settles ).

[Mehni]

The issue here is that you think about this argument as a player, not a developer.

I'm a player, playing the game. If a game isn't enjoyable it's a bad game. Someone can make the best piece of software that's perfectly balanced to their mind and a real work of art, but if it's not enjoyable it failed as a game.

If you ask me RimWorld fails as a story generator. The last-minute change of course hasn't done it any favours. There's too much repeat in types of tales told, no cause and effect, not nearly enough natural story progression.

[Panzer]

Yeah sorry but steam forums is where reason goes to die. I have read all of the linked posts and most of it is really just panic, hyperbole or people being mad because they cant adapt to the changes, especially that russian dude just seems mad and angry. The most ridiculous stuff are those reviews based on the unstable branch, it is unstable for a reason and not a finished product, how can you base a review on a test build that changes daily.

We got a lot of changes with the unstable build, a completely new armor system which no one really anticipated and with it some kinks that only become noticeable over time (more 1shots anyone?), it still needs some polishing, but thats what the unstable build and discussion is for. Lots of big changes also mean that the meta probably changed and its gonna take some time to catch up. As an old player that may be frustrating since your aquired knowledge may be useless now or only partly useable and you therefore may have more trouble adapting compared to a completely new player. But I wouldnt worry, in a few months theres probably a 100 new little strategies again.

[Firestonezz]

Most of these reviews are just anger-venting tirades where players try to compare an unstable+vanilla 1.0 with a stable+(usually) heavily-modded B18 that they've been so accustomed to.

I really hope Tynan doesn't let the vocal minority dissuade him.

[5thHorseman]

1.0 is hands-down more fun than 18. I don't know about every single aspect but I've sure enjoyed it more.

Is it exactly what I want? No. Did things that I used to like go away and were they replaced with things I don't like as much? Of course. But as a whole the game is better for it. I know this even as I complain about them.

[Greep]

It actually isn't even a thing, TBH.  If you look at negative recent reviews there is no change this month from the last.  0.  I think most people on steam forums aren't even playing the unstable branch, though, so hard to make heads or tails of what they think.

[DubskiDude]

Anyone who says Rimworld is "a completely different game" when jumping from B18 to 1.0 should be disregarded flat out. The person has no idea what they're talking about.

The vast majority of changes in 1.0 are positive. Rimworld is going in a great direction. Will it be perfect? No. Will it be excellent? Yes. 96% of recent reviews on Steam are positive, too. That's unheard of.

Stay the course, Tynan.

[RemingtonRyder]

i've read some of the posts over on the Steam forums. It seems like there's some negativity because of a perception that Tynan reads feedback but follows his own course regardless.

I find that feedback can range from bad to good. When Tynan sometimes asks 'What did you expect to happen? What actually happened? How can this be reproduced?' in bug reporting this is a way of improving the quality of feedback towards the good end. If he isn't taking feedback into account, why bother asking people to narrow down what exactly isn't working as they expected?

Tynan's willingness to spend more time refining 1.0 during the public unstable suggests to me that the development process isn't taking a fixed course.