tame degredation priorities, hm squirrel or thrumbo..

[Bobisme]

my thrumbo is loosing it's tamness 1 point left, i tell my toon to go tame it, he goes "sure", he grabs rice, changes his mind grabs some meat and tries to boost taming on a dumb ass squirrel, not to mention he is my lvl 17 guy in animals and he fails, every damn time

If we're going to have the new mechanic at least make the pawn smart enough to know IDFC about a squirrel

To combat this i put 5 ppl on tame, a lvl 9 a lvl 12 one 14 n two 17's i zoom out n all i see is fail, fail , fail , fail :/

A moments silence please, just lost the thrumbo ..but on the bright side, we have a squirrel still!  lol

[Limdood]

You could always....
1)not set the squirrel to be tamed
2)set an already tamed squirrel to be slaughtered if you don't care about it
3)restrict colonists and/or animals to specific zones to prevent specific colonists interacting with specific animals
4)manually assign the handler to tame the thrumbo

You can't expect the game to "know" things you don't tell it.

[Bobisme]

You could always....
1)not set the squirrel to be tamed

squirrel was self tamed

2)set an already tamed squirrel to be slaughtered if you don't care about it

i mass killed almost all non essential animals, drastically reduced pop to reduce them trying to keep up. the trainers just fail.. 9/10 times

3)restrict colonists and/or animals to specific zones to prevent specific colonists interacting with specific animals

i'm not about to make 6 new zones, 3 for certain animals and 3 to restrict certain pawns to ensure they aren't stupid but can still go everywhere else..and ..5 ppl taming and not seeing 1 success...? a 'thrumbo with 1 point left in tame should have been priority by default, not 'squirrels first' and best trainer auto allocated, smart programming.

4)manually assign the handler to tame the thrumbo

the 17 was told train the thrumbo, he went of to tame the new squirrel after specifically being told orders, i'd understand if he had a short memory or what ever but he doesn't

You can't expect the game to "know" things you don't tell it.

I didn't expect to be playing baby sitter club

Edit: trying to get the thrumbo back, harvested some rice, told lvl 17 to tame thrumbo , he took 2 steps and the dick head decided it was better to tame a rabbit, my prioritizing doesn't mean shit.
killed the fkn rabbit, drop the rice, GO TAME THRUMBO the p[rick picks it up and tries to tamn a bloody alpaca, i'ma jusrt shoot him in the head instead next.

The reason he would not tame the thrumbo is because although he had 16 rice he required 17, so when the game allowed the option to tame it wasn't really able to, he'd pick up the 16, realize he didn't have enough and go elsewhere, I harvested more rice he grabbed 17, tried and failed

..and yet... he still has 3 rice on him...go figure..

[Limdood]

See, you have a rabbit and a thrumbo set to be tamed and you expect the game to not only choose for you, but to choose exactly how you'd choose with no input.

Me personally?  I'd choose the rabbit first.  The odds of taming it are monumentally higher, so better return on the time investment.  The game isn't going to make that value judgement for you.

Instead, the game is going to assign a colonist the highest priority, closest, unreserved job on their list that they're equipped to handle.  Period.  It's clear, clean, and straightforward, and if something goes wrong, you can trace it back to EXACTLY the problem.

The moment you start adding in a bunch of hidden value judgements to try and predict what the player wants, is the moment you start pissing off the players who it guessed wrong for...and more importantly, leaving them no recourse to fix the problem, because they can't be sure what exactly caused the issue.

In the first situation, you have an overworked colonist.  You can either reduce his workload (reduce the number of things he needs to tame), increase the people doing that job to spread the workload around, or take the time to set up zones or manually order taming (and cancel current task if he switches to something else).

It could easily happen with any job....colonists are starving and your smokeleaf and corn finishes growing at the same time...the colonist isn't going to make a value judgement.  They're going to follow their priorities and harvest the CLOSEST first, even if it's smokeleaf and they're about to drop unconscious from malnutrition.  Rimworld is going to need your input to make choices the way you want them to be made.  work priorities, setting things to be done a bit at a time instead of all at once, reducing workloads, and zoning is how you're going to get the game to make the decisions in the way you want them made.

The only concession I'd give out of this whole thing is with manually assigning colonists to tame...the game needs to check on available, unreserved food, and assign the colonist to go pick up enough food to complete the taming attempt as PART of the manually assigned order, as not having food/not having enough food currently breaks the functionality of manual taming.

[Bobisme]

Terribly sorry, they're not taming anything bar the thrumbo, i keep saying tame though. EDIT: He's choosing to train over my order to tame.

Rimworld is going to need your input to make choices the way you want them to be made.

ordering them to tame something doesn't change what they actually decide to do.

the game needs to check on available, unreserved food, and assign the colonist to go pick up enough food to complete the taming attempt as PART of the manually assigned order, as not having food/not having enough food currently breaks the functionality of manual taming.

They will still will/can ignore your direct order, having to watch them to make sure they actually complete their task and not just decide "i know you said tame the thrumbo but this rabbit is right here and ima train it instead, and to see it repeatedly, 3 orders ina row he changes his mind.


I agree on The fact of changing hidden priorities and not knowing why things happened is a bad idea. Though, there is s serious problem when i give direct orders to a pawn who has all available resources and changes their mind not due to traits but an already 'hidden' parameter and thought  "i am of to 'deal with animals' tell ya what ima do this instead as, well, it's an animal.
in the instance of taming/training animals it can work bad, as you're constantly fighting against the program to get the desired result, having to baby sit and watch them travel to ensure that half way they don't go nah ima do this instead, you may never get to the thrumbo even with giving the pawn an order.

I get them going, i'm half way there but i'm starving, but not just a 'hey player we think the rabbit (self tamed) is more important than the direct order

(I said he had all resources need to do as he was told as when i got him to get more rice he grabbed 1 more bit but still came back with 3 so he didn't even need a total of the 16 he had in hand, it was early and he was in the best of 'moods' )

They way i see it, the highest level pawn in animals should automatically think 'i should do the harder one'
right now, the lower level animals have all had training the lower level pawnsnow  have nothing to do with animals and the highers can't keep up with demand.
I shouldn't have to make a pile of zones to combat it, though i suppose every morning i could set the highers to a specific zone, but that doesn't apply to them trying to tame Thrumbo's who travel the map and again an order gets easily ignored, time to baby sit..

[Limdood]

I can't know what's going on with the manual assigning other than assumptions or what you say.  I know I've witnessed pawns manually assigned to do something "change their mind" - but it always had a clear reason as to why.  Animals are the thing I've seen this with most:  the animal wandered out of a pawn-allowed area, or the animal went to sleep (happens often to me)...for other tasks i've had items lose their last hit point from degradation while my pawn was en route to pick it up.

My assumption with the pawn "changing his mind" and going for a rabbit over a thrumbo was something along those lines...namely something happened to the thrumbo (sleep, wandering....combat?)  to make it no longer a viable taming target at that moment, at which point the order would be cancelled and the pawn would seek a new job.  I assumed you'd realize if that happened and so moved to my posted idea of something with the food...that he had enough on him to tame a rabbit but not a thrumbo, or that due to rounding errors or something, he could be assigned to tame the thrumbo, but didn't actually have the whole amount of food to do it.

Put simply, The game is really consistent about how it handles things, and if your pawn somehow cancelled a manual order, I feel like it has to be for a REASON identifiable in game....other than mental breaks or the task becoming unable to be completed (or being overridden by a subsequent manual task reserving a necessary item), I don't think I've ever seen a manual task be ignored.

I disagree that the game should try to figure out WHICH animals I want it to tame.  YOU might want that thrumbo tamed over a squirrel, but I want my huskies to finish being trained to haul before they go waste time on a 1% thrumbo tame chance.  By the fact that the game automatically chooses the closest unreserved one, BOTH of us can set up the situation so the game chooses the priority we want.

Terribly sorry, they're not taming anything bar the thrumbo, i keep saying tame though.

Did you mean training rather than taming?

If that's the case, each "job" in the game (cooking, construction, etc.) has "hidden" internal priorities.  For example, butchering is ALWAYS a lower priority than cooking meals, even though they're both under the cooking job.  Deconstructing is ALWAYS lower than constructing.

It's almost certain that under the "animals" job, taming, training, and slaughtering all have their own internal priorities making one of those job types always come before the other.

If you're looking to change that (for example if, like me, you want pawns to butcher before cooking, or you're looking for new animals to be tamed before current ones are trained (if that's actually the internal order)), I can recommend the "Work Tab" mod by Fluffy, which increases the numbered priority list to 1-9 and allows you to ctrl-click to expand the job types to see all the job sub-types and allows you to assign priorities to the individual job parts if you want (again, so you can assign a certain tamer to JUST train and tame, never waste time slaughtering, or a cook to ONLY butcher, or a given constructor to deconstruct BEFORE constructing new things)

[Bobisme]

The only thing i wanted tamed was the thrumbo, but they ignored direct orders to traina rabbit instead which i killed and gave the order again, he tried to train an alpaca,  and again changed his mind, and again. i cut more rice he then tried to tamed the thrumbo leading me to believe he did not have enough but in the end he came back with more rice than he initially had.

Everything you suggested i had checked for, it was early morning, (the thrumbo was awake or i would not have been able to assign a tame) he had enough food, the rice was fresh, the pawn was in a 'good mood' he ignored a direct order 3+ times

I can't see the thrumbo's situation changing so much so that he was unable to do as told, though good point. (and the pawn was set to unrestricted.)

One possibility I see is that when I set him to tame the thrumbo, the game said a pawn is closer to the thrumbo we will get them to do it. So the pawn i gave a direct order to, ignored my rule, and decided to train a closer animal instead.
sounds like it sees the animal trainers as a whole not as individuals, meaning the game let a lower level pawn try to waste the opportunity.

Otherwise i see no reason for it and i shouldn't have to fight against it to make it work.

[Limdood]

If you can reproduce the behavior, I'd suggest posting in the bug reporting forum.  Odds are, even if it's "working as intended" and not considered a bug, you should be able to at least get some clarification on the "why" of the situation.