1.0 changing the game too much?

[Syrchalis]

He most certainly does not disregard feedback.

I said that early research takes far longer due to many factors and simple research bench should probably have 75% not 60% -> Implemented.

I also said that many opportunistic research projects get skipped in favor of the milestone ones (electricity, microelectronics etc.) so the former should be cheap and the latter more expensive -> Implemented.

And my last point was that endgame research had become quite fast during the middle of 1.0 unstable due to the tech level penalty being removed -> Points were doubled across the board for later game research.

Then there was the atrocious 12000 work tree sowing everyone disliked. I suggested that 4000 is more than enough to make it so you can't grow forests easily. -> Got reduced to 10000 first, now it's 4000.

And those are just the few I suggested directly and got implemented, that is disregarding the smaller QoL things others and me have mentioned as well as bigger points other people have suggested and got implemented (like a warning for when a colonists gets hunted by a wild animal for food).

[zizard]

The research shuffling is nice but doesn't have much impact, since there are no in game bench marks for the completion of particular researches. The tree change was a problem they made for themselves.

[mndfreeze]

Yeah, one of the things I love about RimWorld is the fact that Tynan is so active here and really takes into account what the community has to say.  It's not a common thing for a game dev to not only listen to feedback, but actively post daily on the forums about changes as well as make adjustments as people bring up issues. 

1.0 is so much better than 18.  Lightyears ahead with so many great feature and development improvements.  Steam forums are just troll holes.

[Lightzy]

First of all, discounting what steam customers write as feedback because you're so much more better since you write your bullshit here and not there just shows you to be a pompous moron and nothing more.

That said, 'the one way to play' has always been a problem with rimworld. If you treat it as a problem. Elaborate killbox are part of it. Mountain bases were (and still are probably) the best, so what?
That's why Tynan introduced lots of things like sappers, mortar attacks etc.

Rimworld is a limited game because of its underlying design. It relies overly much on scripted, mostly randomized events instead of on organic interconnected systems creating problems that emerge from the simulation.
That's just my opinion of course. It's like the difference between a digital instrument and an analogue one. But in either case you always get to an 'optimal solution'..

[Tynan]

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.

That's backwards. A balanced game thus ends up having more variation since there are more choices - choice A and choice B are balanced so you can go either way depending on circumstances.

An unbalanced game has choice A being much better than choice B regardless of circumstances, which really means that there's no choice at all. You have to do A. So there's less variation, every situation is predictable and linear because you must do A every time. There is only one strategy.

The whole point of balancing a game is to increase the variance of situations and depth of decision-making and number of strategies.

Rimworld is a limited game because of its underlying design. It relies overly much on scripted, mostly randomized events instead of on organic interconnected systems creating problems that emerge from the simulation.

Fair enough. Which games would you point to that did this the best?

[Foefaller]

Rimworld is a limited game because of its underlying design. It relies overly much on scripted, mostly randomized events instead of on organic interconnected systems creating problems that emerge from the simulation.

Fair enough. Which games would you point to that did this the best?

Obviously, I'm not Lightzy, but if I were to pick the story creator-type game that does interacting systems very well, I'd go for Crusader Kings II.

Every landed character from count tier up is literally playing the same game as you, having access to the same mechanics, forced to make nearly all of the same skillchecks, even experience many of the same random events (if you go through CKII's event files, you will find almost every single event involving two or more people have different versions depending on who you are when playing... even events that are virtually impossible to see from that perspective).

When an AI character makes an assassination attempt on you, it isn't just a random thing that the RNG picked to happen, it's something that the AI deliberately pursued based on their traits, garnering the support from other like-minded people to get everything in place, with its success depended on the skills of him and his collaborators, and is a direct consequence of their opinion of you.

Add on top of that the fact that most random events are triggered based on traits (both yours and sometimes those of your courtiers) previous event decisions, or the state of your realm, and you can get a lot of excellent stories that happen, and still have space for the "You have an infection from that minor injury you acquired from a random event, now watch your favorite character, and all the plans you had for them, die." events that Rimworld currently has.

[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.

That's backwards. A balanced game thus ends up having more variation since there are more choices - choice A and choice B are balanced so you can go either way depending on circumstances.

An unbalanced game has choice A being much better than choice B regardless of circumstances, which really means that there's no choice at all. You have to do A. So there's less variation, every situation is predictable and linear because you must do A every time. There is only one strategy.

The whole point of balancing a game is to increase the variance of situations and depth of decision-making and number of strategies.

Rimworld is a limited game because of its underlying design. It relies overly much on scripted, mostly randomized events instead of on organic interconnected systems creating problems that emerge from the simulation.

Fair enough. Which games would you point to that did this the best?

I respectfully disagree, although I think we're talking about different aspects of the balancing. A balance obviously needs to be there, but when the game starts feeling like everything is the same, then it's gone past that, and it's gone into the streamline trap that a lot of devs get stuck in. Everything is perfect on paper, and everyone has the same experience - there's absolutely nothing that feels unique about the game anymore.

To me it feels like every raid is the same, if it's mechanoids, manhunters or general raids. They are hard, which I believe is what you wanted them to be, but if they are all hard, then none of them are. Likewise, you said that our colonists are meant to die - if that's correct, then why on earth should we give two shits about any of them? They are lambs to the slaughter. The only death I even felt remotely sad about was a wild person with useless stats starving to death outside of my base. The rest were just numbers, because they were intended to die from the start.

It's the anomalies that makes a game feel unique and memorable, not a relentless pounding by enemies. If that was the case, we may as well play some shitty tower defence game, and not a colony simulator.There's just something that doesn't feel right about RimWorld anymore. I remember the varied raids of the early versions, when every so often I would get an encounter where all I could think was "Oh holy fuck, how am I going to survive this?", and sometimes clinching victory in the jaws of defeat. That was awesome. But I haven't had that feeling for some time now, and I think it's the changes in the game that's to blame.

If you take enough casualties in a raid now, there's no way to build it back up other than abandoning the base. It just feels kinda pointless. Raids are all about killing our pawns, and it's the same shit over and over again. Why not steal our valuables? Give us a choice of losing wealth or pawns. Why not utilise your new raid functions by having a rare massive raid with both mortars AND frontal assaults? That would feel like an epic assault where you'd still feel like you had a chance.

As it is now, it just feels like we're being shoehorned into ONE experience for every single player, and it all feels similar. To me that kills the fun of the game. Anyway, those are  just my two cents, wordy, and poorly articulated.

TL;DR: It all feels the same. Uniqueness is missing.

[Syrchalis]

It feels a lot like complaining here without any hints at a solution. I mean I feel the game has GAINED a lot of variety in 1.0. Before this I could stand 2-3 playthroughs before I was bored, now I'm in my like 10th and still having fun.

I think in the past three weeks I have 400 hours in Rimworld? Probably 100 were me just leaving the game open while I was doing other things, but at least 250 were me actually playing.

Sure part of it is due to the rapid pace the changes come in, plus mods getting updated slowly, but on the other hand I had extra frustration from bugs, unbalanced things (that were in testing... like the 12.000 work tree sowing) and of course mods and saves constantly breaking. I actually got good in xpathing and XML due to this and even have some basic understanding of C# now.

Anyway - you need to provide examples of what is bad and how to do it better or what games you know that do it better, otherwise your feedback is really not that helpful other than that the devs now know "some people don't like something".

[Lightzy]

Rimworld is a limited game because of its underlying design. It relies overly much on scripted, mostly randomized events instead of on organic interconnected systems creating problems that emerge from the simulation.

Fair enough. Which games would you point to that did this the best?

Probably Dwarf Fortress does it pretty well, though obviously that's not a fair comparison. It's basically the concept at the core of the design there.

But most games do this. Except for maybe pre-scripted adventure games. I think it's actually the rule, while rimworld's focus on 'storyteller random event' design is the standout. Also all skill based games are like that, which is why they're so engaging, and strategic/tactical simulations, real time or turn based...

I'm not saying the 'crisis' concept is bad, it's just limited and not as engaging.
Limited because they'll keep repeating unless you program in infinity of them, and not as engaging because when things happen they don't feel to the player as a result of his own agency or, more crucially perhaps, as an outcome of previous events, in a cascade of events that is unfolding.
They also don't necessarily make sense to the player (how is that tribe that keeps suiciding all able bodies on your colony growing to the thousands?) and don't affect the world that the player is part of (same example. There is no effect on the tribe, thus no signifiers of 'progress').

I think I would have enjoyed more a design where the player feels that more things that happen are a result of his own skill, focus, neglect in certain areas, etc, regarding things that came before, and where this is clearly communicated. And of course some completely random things mixed in, but perhaps not in a 'preset' way but with a lot more variance of effect.

I think it's a matter of perception also. A player, I think, is much more likely to be engaged when he sees that the toxic storm coming his way is an emergent part of the ongoing simulation, rather than a random punishment visited upon him.

I'm not a game designer, much less a master like yourself, but it is my humble opinion
I personally do not like the 'storyteller' design on principle, although the game certainly has captivated me nevertheless.
And there are of course, many many aspects which are simulation emergent (your animals littering your house, leading to unhappiness, forcing an 'outdoors' solution which is less defensible etc etc).

[Walkaboutout]

It feels a lot like complaining here without any hints at a solution. I mean I feel the game has GAINED a lot of variety in 1.0. Before this I could stand 2-3 playthroughs before I was bored, now I'm in my like 10th and still having fun.

I think in the past three weeks I have 400 hours in Rimworld? Probably 100 were me just leaving the game open while I was doing other things, but at least 250 were me actually playing.

Sure part of it is due to the rapid pace the changes come in, plus mods getting updated slowly, but on the other hand I had extra frustration from bugs, unbalanced things (that were in testing... like the 12.000 work tree sowing) and of course mods and saves constantly breaking. I actually got good in xpathing and XML due to this and even have some basic understanding of C# now.

Anyway - you need to provide examples of what is bad and how to do it better or what games you know that do it better, otherwise your feedback is really not that helpful other than that the devs now know "some people don't like something".

So there's a lot here I could say, or interject my opinion on, or relate my long years of gaming experience about, but instead, I'm simply going to say that, in the end, I have to agree with Syrchalis' first paragraph in the above post.

Things in 1.0 unstable are different, compared to b18 for example. Some things better, others worse. All of this in the name of changing the interplay that DOES exist between systems, and player input.

Perhaps it is because of the ongoing changes, perhaps not, but like Syr, I usually go through a couple playthroughs of the game, lose interest, and come back a couple months later. This time, I've started 4 or 5 playthroughs. Twice as many as I normally would.

Not because I got smashed previously, or because a save broke, or because I got totally bored with the last one. But just because I had new ideas to experience things in game a bit differently. Whatever the specific cause, I'm playing more Rimworld at the moment, than I have previously.

The point is, try it for yourself. Don't take others' words for it, or subscribe to their doom and gloom (or even their peaches and candy). Give it a spin yourself, and see how you like it. I'm quite enjoying it :-).

[Studly Spud]

I enjoy most of the changes from 0.18 to 1.0 and I think they are for the better, however admittedly they do fit my playstyle more perfectly than others.  I enjoy living the story and getting involved in my pawn's lives, I don't enjoy so much setting everything to ultra difficult then going for win condition.  So most of the balancing and design decisions have suited me perfectly.  Particularly raider balancing.

[erdrik]

Ill throw in and say 1.0 is an improvement, and the game still feels like Rimworld so its not changing "too much" for me.

[Bones]

Rimworld is a limited game because of its underlying design. It relies overly much on scripted, mostly randomized events instead of on organic interconnected systems creating problems that emerge from the simulation.

Fair enough. Which games would you point to that did this the best?

Hi Tynan, I don't know if it did better, but there was chaining events that would keep progressing and reappearing years after it started but with a long hiatus between them.

King of Dragon Pass

[I Am Testing This Game]

The idea of completely rebalancing the game for the 1.0 final patch is... uh... ambitious.

In some online, e-sports style games, the Devs consistently work to avoid a dominant strategy, nerfing one, waiting for a new one to pop up, and nerfing that in turm, repeating indefinitely.

But this model is not necessarily ideal for a single player game. Usually in single player games, there is a dominant strategy  (or rather, many mini-strategies for different situations). And during the learning phase, you're learning that strategy. And during the mastery phase, you can try and challenge yourself by using less optimal strategies, or use the dominant strategy but give the AI more numbers, etc.

But where game design becomes more of an "art" than a science, is in whether or not this dominant strategy is actually fun. Many aspects of single player games are inherently somewhat mundane activities, that aren't necessarily fun in and of themselves, but can become fun as part of a well put together game.

If you break down the tasks involved in building and maintaining a base, some of them can be pretty boring if examined in isolation (say, the crop growing mini-game), but the hope is that in theory they work together with other elements of the game to produce something interesting. (trying not to starve, while balancing all other dangers and pressures)

Rebalancing a game may eliminate the existing dominant strategy, but eventually a new dominant strategy will be discovered. It might be relatively less dominant, admittedly.

If your old dominant strategy was one that players found fun, and got used to, the risk of re-balancing the game is that the new dominant strategy might be less fun. Like, let's say the old dominant strategy, imbalances and all, happened to emphasize the best aspects of the game, and minimize the worst aspects of the game. Which is part of why the game got a big following in the first place.

A new dominant strategy might fix some major imbalances, but end up putting less emphasis on the good parts of the game and more emphasis on the weak parts of the game. So it might be more balanced, but less fun.

Sometimes an entire game (or game-play style) is built around imbalances and even exploits, which end up producing a really fun experience, almost by accident. Because they minimize bad aspects of the game and brings out good aspects of the game. Good aspects which may be hard to quantify and analyze, because "fun" is hard to analyze. Pre-casting in ultima online is the obvious example, but less extreme examples of this are actually relatively common. Unintended / unplanned aspects of the game, contributing to a "fun" gameplay paradigm.

For example, the game may be more fun because a certain intended strategy is NOT viable, but if that strategy was made viable, it would reduce the fun, because it brings out a bad aspect of the game. (Dex monkeys in UO)

I am not sure anyone can predict how a total re-balance of a game will turn out, in terms of whether it makes it more fun or less fun. Doing it when you're trying to declare a game finished is... ambitious.

Slight adjustments to just a few variables can have a big effect on whether or not a Rimworld run is fun. Rebalances to entire systems, even more so.

[Greep]

I do think a large part of the payer base enjoys the unbalanced side of rimworld:  That is, wrecking large raids and such using unbeatable defenses.  Nerfing things so this is not possible without extreme ease on medium difficulty or below I find to be not worth the effort or possibly counterproductive.  This sort of player will just download mods or stop playing if this becomes impossible.