Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Work should make sense and be organized, especially in an emergency situation. Work people just do to demonstrate that they are working is senseless.
Hauling in this game and organizing hauling is really important to be productive in the end.
Ok. Hauling is a skill and some do it better than others in real life. In Rimworld haulers are quit productive. Only walking speed is a point. Having some not doing it at all for me is ok. I like to cope with some challenges in terms of the organization of my team. I really do not need them all being able to haul things to speed game up. I´m playing to have fun, not to get something done fast.
Realism? Come on. Rimworld people are not real people. Someone not liking people who do not haul can handle this like they want to handle this. I normally do not kill canibals for example as well. No need to kill people doing no hauling. It´s Rimworld. You hate your guys or you love them playing this game. Both does not matter to have fun.
Y'all are funny. Been divorced for 10 yrs. But what I said still stands. The mechanics work perfectly as it is and does not need to be changed. At least not in the way you all are suggesting. The way I'd recommend a change is if someone loses a limb it adds on extra traits to limit their skill gains in all skills. Seems like you all want it to become easier and searching for any farfetched excuse as to why it needs to happen.
Most importantly, it makes for interesting scenarios. I keep on randomizing each playthrough, and boy can I tell you how painful the start can be when 2 out of your 3 colonists turn out to be useless knobheads who won't do anything other than eat, socialize and craft while the remaining one works overtime. And god forbid that the useful one breaks down or dies. ^^
I keep getting specialsnowflake pyromaniac go juice addicted won't do dumb labor, hauling and cleaning queens who will only do art and slow things down.
What's fun about that?
At least, if everyone could always clean, I could assign them to permanent cleaning duty but apparently you think that wouldn't be fun. Why?
It sucks and takes forever but I can do it.
"Incapable of"'s should be subject to some form of change too because it's really silly how they can stack and stack and stack for days until a settler can barely do anything and are then set in stone forever.
The fun in that is the ridiculous stories that happen becuase of those crap pawns. And the stories ARE the point of this game.
When it gets down to it, it's a single player game and everyone can play how they want of course. If these pawns really bother some of you so bad, why not just use the mod that gets rid of all those "unable to" haul/clean traits?
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=19897.0 (For old alpha, but I believe it just needs a quick change of the alpha version in the about file) Thought I had seen one of these on Steam as well, but not positive on that. If there is, maybe it is ready to go for A16.
edit: found it:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=725971541&searchtext=haul
Things like that do not happen often. That´s what I like. Every game is a new challenge, even if you know the game and how to play it. You also know the skills of your people before entering the map and you can chose characters in the beginning.
No problem others having fun with mods. Just use them but please do not try to force all of us to play like you want to play.
I hope you're pleased with yourself. I'm at work, ostensibly working, and I have a massive head cold.
I read that line, and I tried to hold back the laughter, but I failed, so the snot in my sinuses tried to hold back the laughter, and that failed, so now I'm laughing like an idiot at work while completely covered in my own mucus.
Anyway, to contribute positively to this topic, I would like to add that it would be nice if we could replace the current system with a more fleshed-out system where you can force people to do things they are unwilling, rather that incapable of doing, in exchange for something like a mood debuff. Ideally, this is something that can change over time (as they do it), and I would like a similar system to be added for the current skills: where if you have no interest in something but do it for long enough, you have a chance of gaining an interest or passion.
The current system works well enough for Rimworld on its own, but given that mods are a big part, a different, more robust system would work better and enable all sorts of different things. The one sticking out in my mind is my favorite mod is QuantumX's Imperial Guard mod(s). I like to roleplay and start my colonists off with lasguns and tell them to survive and claim the planet for the God Emperor.
It's only fitting that when getting new "recruits", I should be able to tell them "I don't care you were a pretty princess pop idol and only care about chatting about boys, you're in the Imperial Fething Guard now, cupcake."
But it makes sense to me that ugly pyromaniac pessimist gourmet chefs who are incapable of cooking exist in this game. A community in real life also has to cope and accept crazy or strange people. It´s fun and challenging in Rimworld having them in the community. Having them in a real community sometime it´s also fun and challenging. What´s the problem?
Prefacing this with the note that I don't actually have a problem with the system, but I like logic'ing things out and helping to clarify stuff.
RimWorld is a game, but someone is entitled to ask for realism in a game where things such as backgrounds are meant to provide additional realism. If an element in a game is present to add something, someone can expect-at least to some extent-a bit more of that thing.
Now, as for how this incapability system should work, in order to fit with realism, certain things need to be addressed;
1. Actual physical capability. Yes, many colonists simply cannot do certain tasks due to physical traits, but this isn't always the case. If it were, someone missing body parts would be incapable of certain things (e.g. I have a blind woman missing both eyes who can still do things like surgery, although it's a bad idea for her to do it). This is arguably the biggest double-edged sword that would arise from adjusting this mechanic, as injured pawns could then be made incapable of certain tasks altogether, even if they were at a skill of 20 for that task.
2. Psychological predisposition (or special snowflake syndrome for those of royal or glitterworld background). This is the section for pawns with backgrounds that cause incapability. Examples of this include things like the Refugee childhood background, which disables firefighting. Such a psychological trauma to a child would easily be able to instill enough fear to prevent that person from being able to do said thing without driving themselves potentially insane. Regarding those of the more "delicate" upbringings, people like them exist irl, however pawns with backgrounds like this (e.g. Model or Medieval Lord) should be able to do things like haul if put into a dire situation where their self-preservation instincts should override their need to "dissociate themselves from the peasants". You wanna stay alive? F**king haul that medicine, d**chebag.
3. Background correlation. Now this is where the game goes off the rails. You can have a childhood and adulthood background that directly contradict each other, which is something the game should not allow, due to the number of inconsistencies it causes. A Vatgrown Soldier childhood with a Gourmet Chef adulthood, for example, should either not be possible in the game's randomizer or should "break" the inability, allowing the pawn to cook. Essentially, either the background randomizer needs to have certain combinations disabled, or needs to be adjusted to have adulthood backgrounds override childhood ones in certain cases, or both.
Ultimately, I myself don't have a problem with the system, as if I get a colonist I dislike I either harvest their organs until they die or simply assign them to something they can do, even if it's a skill of 0, they'll learn eventually to do it somewhat better. I just figured I'd not only logic this out, but clarify how all of this would need to be adjusted in order to properly function.
I'm almost certain some pawns can have a hidden Serial Killer trait though, as my old doctor would kill EVERY colonist she operated on, even with insanely boosted chances for surgery. That I find a little bulls**t.
You're misunderstanding me.
I am fully aware that people like what you're talking about exist - selfish little spoiljerks who think they're God's gift to God and can do (or not do) whatever they want. I know full well that these people exist... what I'm saying is that their behavior is not acceptable or tolerable in any form.
Hell, you don't even need to be in a survival situation. Just take your spoiled little city kid butt out of the suburbs for a while. I grew up on a farm and the policy was "no work, no food." Try that out for a month, see how far "I won't do anything but art!" takes you. :p
This goes x100 if we're stranded on an alien planet. Forget "no work, no food." You don't work for the Colony, you BECOME food. I don't care how special you think you are. Special snowflakes go good with the special sauce! :p
To make it clear: yes, you are an individual with your own wants and needs, who is as unique as a snowflake. You are also part of a society and you have obligations as such. Both of those things are true. Take care of your surroundings, then take care of yourself. That's what it means to be a human being - neither selfish, nor a slave.
If someone has severe PTSD and thus cannot firefight or use a weapon, for example, that seems fair enough. I'm not going to traumatize them furtther and risk having them break when I could just get them to do things they CAN do.
If, on the other hand, I've got someone like the oft-mentioned model (I've been lucky so far and not had any of those), then I feel that yes, I do want to be able to say to them "Look, I know you're not used to roughing it, but we all have to work together if we're going to survive. We do not have the resources or inclination to wait on you and we can't have people sitting about while others move. Now move your pretty backside and do something useful."
With physical incapability, then no, I'm not going to have someone risk their health, and potentially that of others around them, by trying to do something that is, as many of these tasks are, actually difficult and even dangerous.
I think it's easy for many players to forget just what these people are actually doing in terms of how physically difficult and dangerous they are. A person incapable of plant work is sent to plant cut. Now there's someone ineptly swinging an axe; what could possibly go wrong?
Also, to be fair, these people didn't choose to be here (unless you're doing a scenario where they did); they crashlanded and are probably frightened and dismayed, and know they are horribly unprepared for surviving on a hostile rimworld. It's not like that model VOLUNTEERED to be dumped somewhere that is going to be sheer Hell for a pampered pretty-boy/princess
Part of the problem is that the game treats all of these the same, even though that makes no sense. I personally like the idea of having incapabilities being better worked rather than all functioning the same. Yes, some people may flatly refuse to do the work, some people might try to do it if told to and then hurt themselves, set the kitchen on fire, drop an item and break it, throw a massive strop (mental break), faint in terror... I think that consequences for bullying people into doing 'incapables' could be a thing. Maybe people can be selected to do 'incapables' but are likely to cause problems, so you have to consider whether the circumstances and the need warrant the risk.
As for your third point, I wholeheartedly agree. I have a woman called Croio in my colony. Croio's childhood background is 'sole survivor'. This disables hunting and firefighting, and also combat; she can't even equip a weapon. Her adult background is 'warrior'. This means she has huge bonuses to a skill-set that has already been disabled. It seems to me that in these circumstances, one of two things needs to take effect. Either the skill is re-enabled if an adult background gives it bonuses (Presumably in this case, she got a good therapist) or childhood background selection limits the adult backgrounds that can be applied so that, for example, a sole survivor never receives the 'warrior' adult background.
Croio is also a psychopath. Still can't do violence, though. Still manages to be one of my most useful people.
There is that too... especially considering, from a story standpoint, I mean... Croio picked her adult occupation, right? Why would someone who refuses to fight become a warrior in the first place? And does she not know what "warrior" means? (Hint: "War" is in the name.) That's just silly.
See, Croio is a case where I can see the other answer making sense, as in, re-enabling the skill. It might be that she recovered from her trauma and part of that was actually learning how to fight and not panic. It might be that raiders came and she had to stand up for herself. It might be that whoever took her in insisted she had to learn. In all cases though, it couldn't work without re-enabling the skill. As you correctly say, no one who refuses to fight would become a warrior - and still not be able to fight. If they were so traumatized that there was no way they could ever fight, they'd pick another career.