Tynan, don't let the community get you bogged down in tweaking!

[mumblemumble]

If balance is off and difficulty is off, people won't play, there will be less feedback and less interest in the game

Yeah, cause you speak of ALL of the community...get real dude, not everyone is like that, certainly not me.

Yeah, tweaks are relatively easy to do, but tweaks will be inevitable anytime anything new is added, and since it IS very early on (and only kick-starter people have it atm) its understandable that some things won't be balanced. I would very, very, very much prefer unbalanced but new content instead of repeatedly tweaking a bunch of things, which will most likely be tweaked later anyway. Besides, adding in new things INEVITABLY means old things need to be tweaked accordingly, so I'm sure it wouldn't hurt.

[Kender]

People already started playthroughs with handicaps of no turrets, no funnelling and no pancake bunkers. ...

This is right.

It is pre-alpha, leave old things there and keep new contents in. Player will test the game mechanics and keeping feeding back.

If something is useless, people won't use it, they will die out by itself.
If there is a contradictory opinions about a certain thing, that suggest two different game modes for two different groups of players in the future. It is an opportunity to the game development.

Don't decide what should be there and what shouldn't be definitely just yet.

[Galileus]

If balance is off and difficulty is off, people won't play, there will be less feedback and less interest in the game

Yeah, cause you speak of ALL of the community...get real dude, not everyone is like that, certainly not me.

No, I speak of common sense.

[mumblemumble]

If balance is off and difficulty is off, people won't play, there will be less feedback and less interest in the game

Yeah, cause you speak of ALL of the community...get real dude, not everyone is like that, certainly not me.

No, I speak of common sense

Again, you are trying to speak for everyone. And hell, balance / difficulty issues have been much, much worse in other games and (along with other issues) and people still love them, even if they are no longer updated despite the balance issues. Postal 2 for instance has horrible, horrible balance issues, but I still love the game because its entertaining, and so do many people. And its a complete game, has been for years, but we don't care about the balance issues, cause the positives outweigh the negative in our eyes.

See, people who play betas of things SHOULD know that something is incomplete, and things may not be balanced, someone who legitimately stops playing a game just because a beta update is unbalanced is most likely a little kid, and doesn't understand what a beta is, and frankly isn't a good person to weigh opinions in on a game.

So please... DON'T try speaking for everyone, your opinion is not mine, and I'm certain I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

[Galileus]

So please... DON'T try speaking for everyone, your opinion is not mine, and I'm certain I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Like IMHO that? IMHO because if that's IMHO what you IMHO expect me IMHO to do, then how about NO.

I simply fail to see your point? You want me to spew "IMHO" every minute? You want me to never ever speak of majorities because someone can be minority? Will you react the same if I say you that most of planet Earth surface is water - will you accuse me of lying, because you don't live on water? I fail to capture why would you even propose a censorship only, because you may think differently. Well... I do have few ideas, but I'm far too much of a nice guy to believe you would have such low drives about you. You wouldn't, would you?

See, people who play betas of things SHOULD know that something is incomplete, and things may not be balanced, someone who legitimately stops playing a game just because a beta update is unbalanced is most likely a little kid

This is from a man, who told me to get real? If someone stops playing a game because he don't find it fun, he's most likely a reasonable human being. If someone don't have fun while playing a game but plays it nevertheless "because it's a beta", then he's most likely a little kid. The rest of us have jobs we have to do, and we want our games to be fun - not an another job.

There's to be an open alpha soon, and people WILL drop it if there are major problems with it. The game can be tough as it is, it doesn't need to be punishing as well.

Alpha/beta is obviously a statement, that the game is incomplete and there will be changes. It is not a statement, that you should like the game even if you have no fun. It asks for trust, that bugs or problems will be addressed - but it does not guarantee a positive answer. What does guarantee an answer is quality - if the game is playable and enjoyable in alpha, there's a huge chance it will be so in beta and on release. If the game is not - it begs a question "why release it in alpha, then?".

When you release a public alpha no less, you state - look at my game, my game is amazing! Then people look at the game to see if it is indeed amazing, NOT to suffer through it "because it's alpha, so what do you want?". It really doesn't matter what version or art you release - a public release needs to be of a certain quality.

And once again, to address your accusations - what I write is my opinion, and that should go without any additional notifications. I will most certainly not stop posting, because you think censorship is good idea. You would do well to remember, that in any discussion people exchange ideas, statements and opinions and rarely if ever proceed to explain which one was which - most of us do well capturing these things. If you disagree - please, be my guest and make your statement with appropriate argument instead of trying to force me into submission or forbidding me to address issues relating to majorities.

[AspenShadow]

Your logic is flawed.

...Also, this is hypocrisy on the highest level...

Like IMHO that? IMHO because if that's IMHO what you IMHO expect me IMHO to do, then how about NO.

I simply fail to see your point? You want me to spew "IMHO" every minute? You want me to never ever speak of majorities because someone can be minority? Will you react the same if I say you that most of planet Earth surface is water - will you accuse me of lying, because you don't live on water? I fail to capture why would you even propose a censorship only, because you may think differently. Well... I do have few ideas, but I'm far too much of a nice guy to believe you would have such low drives about you. You wouldn't, would you?

Alright I'm putting a stop to things here, this is getting ridiculous.

Galileus while I fully respect you have some valid statements; even if they are phrased sweepingly, PLEASE stop being so confrontational on the forums. Both here with mumble and on other occasions I can point to (notably ShadowDragon8685).

You have good thoughts -just like everybody else- and are encouraged to express them here, but please refrain from criticising others' ideas & opinions unless it is constructive and clearly friendly in tone.

[Galileus]

I do get confrontational easily, ey? True enough. I do have a lot to say, and when someone cuts it short... well, old habits die hard, you have to get down in tears and blood on some of these forums to get your message across. Than again, here it's way out of the line, I will give you that. Will do my best to adapt or get banned trying, sir!

[AspenShadow]

I do get confrontational easily, ey? True enough. I do have a lot to say, and when someone cuts it short... well, old habits die hard, you have to get down in tears and blood on some of these forums to get your message across. Than again, here it's way out of the line, I will give you that. Will do my best to adapt or get banned trying, sir!

You're hard to dislike, you know that lol? You're unlikely to get banned as there are worse offenders than yourself and I wasn't fluffing up the reprimand by saying you have valid points; I read through every comment you've made here before passing judgement.

It's just at the moment we're trying to be less cut-and-dry with proposed ideas, no outright refusals and no definite approvals. It gives the author time to see their own errors and evolve, or simply expand their initial suggestion into new directions.

[Teiwaz]

The other thing to keep in mind is that this isn't just a kickstarted game. It's also an alphafunded game. The reality is that the game is playable now, and people are paying for it now, and it is probably going to be in development for quite some time.

I've seen far too many cases where "pre-alpha" is used as an excuse for messed up priorities. The 9,000 pound gorilla in the room is Dwarf Fortress. I love Dwarf Fortress. But *years* of development are put into stuff like world generation and bee keeping, while all along the interface sucks, sieges can be completely negated by a drawbridge that costs 8 stone to build, and basic features like military training still don't work worth a damn.

I can't get friends to even try Dwarf Fortress. The justification for not having a proper interface is that "it's still in pre-alpha." Well, I've been playing it since the 2D version, so that's at *least* seven years, and if anything, the interface keeps getting worse as more stuff is bolted onto the game. There comes a time when you have to recognize that "pre-alpha" is the state in which your game will be experienced by most people, and it's the state that it'll be in for the foreseeable future, and you need to make the effort to keep it playable. It's a choice that Tarn has made, and it seems like he's comfortable with what he can pull in from donations, but it's also a choice made while he has been insulated by a community that says just this: "don't worry if it's barely playable, it's okay, it's pre-alpha, we'll live with it" and he never even sees the thousands of people who try it and give up, or are scared off by the incomprehensible screenshots, and never even have a chance to become a customer. With its headstart in the genre, its internet-fame and buzz, Dwarf Fortress could have been a Minecraft. But it's not, because "pre-alpha!"

Rimworld is already in a much better place than DF has ever been in terms of accessibility. But I know I, for one, already have a hard time recommending it to anyone that isn't a bit of a glutton for punishment. When I describe the game - especially before Chill Callie - it's one where you are hanging on by your fingernails under constant raider attacks, where every minute you're just barely holding on to life, and eventually you die anyway. That's not an experience that a lot of players want, even when they otherwise would be very open to a deep town building game: something which captures the spirit of DF without the catastrophic interface. Also, now that the game is playable, there are Let's Plays and forum posts and reviews going up every minute. Those things aren't going to go away, and in the future when people are looking up Rimworld, they're going to find descriptions of how the game plays and feels *now.* It all comes down to the fact that you can't have your evangelists warning people away.

While it's impossible to maintain a game in a fully polished, playable state while it's underdevelopment, if you ignore keeping it as playable as is reasonably possible, you do so at your own peril.

[Galileus]

It's a funny story with Minecraft, really. It hit all the right notes yet Notch failed to see it again and yet again, and doing quite a lot of sad and bad for his game. Still, in the end successful concept prevailed, but that a story only one in a thousand brilliant games have luck to tell. I do hope RimWorld will be one of these games - it's definitely worth it and Tynan has shown a lot of good stuff both in the terms of game and his development. Single fact of not bending under the pressure of dozens of 3D block games that seem to pop-up right now and keeping it nice and clean with no Z-axis is an award-winning move. Then there are things like patches, planning the game in modular fashion... RimWorld deserves to get a chance to tell that story, and Kickstarter and pre-alpha reviews show that clearly!

[mumblemumble]

I do get confrontational easily, ey? True enough. I do have a lot to say, and when someone cuts it short...

You just have to realize that, while its annoying to have someone "cut you short", others equally dislike having their opinions cut short as well.

Just keep that in mind, disagreements WILL happen on forums (its inevitable) But just try and keep in mind that while they will happen, its ok to disagree, and it doesn't need to turn into a flame match, and nobody even needs to "win" such argument.

(Side note : sorry admin if this is seen as continuing something on, just felt this really needed to be said)

On topic, priority right now REALLY needs to be adding flesh to the bare bones. As said before, tweaks will be required ANYTIME, ANYTHING is added, so doing tweaking in bursts (like 1 update all flesh, 1 all tweaks, or 2 updates, flesh, 1 tweaks) is better for letting the game progress in a smooth manner.

There's no point making a perfectly balanced game if it will just become unbalanced next update, you just need to keep a reasonably steady pace about it.

[Galileus]

Mumble - I don't want to prolong it either, but just short thing of clarification.
One, yeah, I know the thing exactly. Even worse, I tend to often make points or statements in thought-shortcut way ("many people will" -> "people will" is a REAL soft slide for me, really) and even get into prolonged argues over it because it will never occur to me there is a shortcut in thought process only I can see.
Two - most importantly, I always put arguments before people, even if it seems otherwise. You may yet see me defending your idea as fiercely as I would go against you. Hell, on last forums I was I made some friends by trading insults with them for pages (don't worry - different forums, it was actually needed there) or gained sort of infamy for suddenly changing sides when someone would try to piggyback his (even worse) idea using my opposition to the prior one. I'm here to discuss and not to date - and in discussions sides change as often as good arguments are presented