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
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
To add to this, the game already seems to do that at times.
Often when i'm rolling pawns i see more often than not that "Good" passion or trait ones come with some sort of debilitation.
They're old, crippled/scarred, or can't do X work type (Love no dumb labor).
Some of which is due to their backstory giving good stats but disabling XYZ.
Can totally see that system being used to give us a more "flexible" starting cast.
They wont add it because why do they need to? There's already a mod for it. What they really need to do is make it easier for modders to upgrade the mods.
If they don't care if you cheat then why are you acting like this is a big deal to them, once again I'm saying your acting like its a big deal to someone else not you which is really a strange thing to do.
Your not ignoring fluff your ignoring his point. you also act like its a good thing and then say but the devs would't want it like you would know. You can't claim to know the inner workings of their minds you have no idea what they are thinking perhaps they hadn't thought of that.
Truly it is drivel when your point never changes you say just about everytime one way or another "Thats not what the Devs want" and your tune never changes. You act like your arguing logic but your only logic is dev this dev that its not an argument like i've said your points aren't yours so therefore I can't convince you that they are bad, because you then turn around and act like well im not totally against it but it goes against the devs vision. How does one argue against that, its like the point you keep dodging I can't change your mind unless I change the devs mind. A point you fail to ever respond to. you say your open minded but you only bring up what the devs want, your the exact oppostie of open minded.
Your not giving us your opinion your giving us the devs you turn round and round talking about how oh its fine to use a character editor but heaven forbid they been in the vanilla game. It like your legitimately see them as two completely different games and that if we want something to be in the vanilla it would ruin that one for the devs. I've said it before if your so concern about what the devs want then let them decide they don't need you here in the discussion trying to convince people that they don't want it in the game. Like you said if they change there minds then you'll be okay with it. Then why argue at all.
(A) backstory can't be used with (B) and vice versa.
Having X benefit should see you with an equal debuff
Any starting items will induce less room for stat customization
Just wanted to share a few easy ways this can be adhered to the current game design.
Similar to every other type we already have no? :3
What am I saying that is not about "what could be added to said design"? I just made a comment about including a character editor via dev mode when you all jumped down my throat.
Before that I stated things I agreed with, things I thought were good ideas despite disagreeing with the overall principle of a base game character editor. Because like it or not, opinions or not. Those opinions still have to content with reality, and reality is based on what the dev are likely to accept or not.
Pointing out that reality should only help you with your discussion, because if you really wanted a character editor not in mod form. That's a reality you still have to contend with.
I've stated a point based character editor that kept flaws intact was a good compromise in my opinion. As such I don't disagree, and never have.
The thing I followed up with, that everybody here has a problem with. Is that despite my opinion on that. You are still effecting pawn info which the devs have an issue with (unless they change minds on that). It's just the reality.
Why are you explaining reality to a hypothetical?
This is the same logic as "Well the trolly problem wouldn't have a random lever out for anyone. And it wouldn't have people tied on the rails. And-"
It adds nothing to the discussion.
Especially when you use it as a crutch for YOUR OWN OPINIONS especially when you start victimizing yourself and claim people are just ignorant or rather have "double standards"
How am I ignoring his point? Also isn't that a bit ironic of you to say after all the times you've ignored mine? I've had many discussions with fluff and throughout that I've agreed with some of his points. Because I don't agree with everything he said, and replied with why I disagreed with it is not ignoring his point, it's debating it. He's free to disagree with it and debate it back.
Actually MY opinion has been pretty flexible in this conversation. The FACT that I constantly state about the devs intention has nothing to do with MY opinion, it's just a fact that this entire discussion has to content with so therefor it's always relevant. Also show me where your point and tune has changed, ragging on me for this perceived point of view that never changes while your doing the exact same thing.
Again, I've already proved I'm open minded, infact you've already proved I'm open minded by quoting my own sentences where I compromise, but sure.
Than your choosing not to read my comments, which honestly was pretty evident already.
RimWorld thrives on player creativity and agency. Allowing players to modify pawns directly enhances their ability to create unique stories and scenarios.
A pawn editor enables players to fine-tune individual characters, adding depth and personalization to their colony.
Yes, pawn editing can affect balance, but it’s not inherently negative. Balancing is crucial, but so is customization. Players may want to create specific characters for role-playing purposes, even if it slightly disrupts balance. For example:
A quirky scientist with a passion for art but terrible combat skills.
A battle-hardened veteran with scars and PTSD maybe starts with really bad injuries or chance of high mental breaks and relies on another pawn to help him out.
An obsessive historian who chronicles every event in their journal. Excellent research skills but refuses to fight.
A family crash lands on this Rimworld planet during a family vacation but each family member has their own positives and negatives, with their own unique personalities.
I could go on with examples for roleplaying.
These personalised pawns contribute to the richness of the game world. Would that affect balance to insane levels? No I don't think so. Not as bad as scenario editor removing all threats or unlocking the whole tech tree at the start or allowing you to start with an abundance of resources. Or Xenotypes allowing you to make an immortal, insanely overpowered combat pawn.
I don't know what that quote is from or the context so I can't comment on that, but it has nothing to do with what's reality. As I've already explained in the comment you replied to and this one. Reality has everything to do with this discussion.
I'm using reality as a crutch? K. As for me victimizing myself, that wasn't a problem until people rather call me names that contend with that reality or the arguments I was making. If people comment that I'm a troll because I apparently 'ignored' somebodies comment, while ignoring mine AND not providing where I ignored that comment. That is a double standard.
You are correct, Rimworld does thrive on that and as such the modding community also has helped the game thrive by a lot including character editors. Which is one of the reasons the modding community is great, the other one being creating ways to play the game your way when the game doesn't. Which includes character editors.
Look, I understand your reasons for wanting one and I agree with them. I too like to add role-play flare to my characters at times which is why I also use one. I know you and everybody else here HATES when I say this but it's still true. A character editor conflicts with their intended game design and mods give that options to use them despite that.
I'll try to explain my point once more because I think there is some misunderstanding on what it is. I don't disagree that through a scenario editor you can effect balance to a higher degree, never argued against that.
My point is that a scenario editor effects so much more than just things that effect balance, in-balance is a minor part of it's function. While pawn info largely effects balance, regardless of how major or minor that is.
There is almost nothing about that info that doesn't except for minor things like names, hair styles and body types which I don't have an issue with if that is all you wanted to have changed. Anything beyond that is nothing BUT in-balance and everything including that, character editors in general go against this statement.
"You can randomize them as much as you want, but you can't fully customize them without mods or dev tools. RimWorld is designed around a motley crew - you will not start with perfect colonists, nor should you try."
Can I ask where that quote is from? For your question, that doesn't sound perfect. That does sound like more of a challenge. I assume that's a quote you've made on what you wanted for your role-play though, which again I don't take issue with.
It's just that to get that, even to your point that you CAN change things to be harder still conflicts what that statement I provided. They wanted randomised, and stated in that quote that to do so otherwise would have to come from dev tools or mods.
You say the base game is the way your "average" player has come to enjoy. But then you act like turn on devs mode is like playing a different game. Even though earlier you act like oh well cheating with dev mode isn't the intended way to use it. Which one is it, is it unintended or is it ok because you have to turn it on you can have it both ways.
Literally just about every other time fluff talks to you since bringing up the point system, you fall back on your it can only be used to cheat. You act like i've ignored what you said but what you said can't be debated most of the time so why should i try to, like your point about scenario editor and Xenotype is literally "well thats different" or you say "anythings ok as long as its in dev mode because now it doesn't matter if you want to use it to cheat". Well the devs don't want it then their not going to add it. Thats not a point you can argue. "It goes against my perceived vision of what the devs want from the game" Ok well they aren't here so why should I argue that against that statement.
Honestly your like "my opinions aren't the same as the devs", then you are like but because of them it shouldn't be added to the game. Then how are you really stating your opinion you take one step forward then take two back. If your only here to talk about what you think the devs want then why are you here at all. Your own opion only comes up when you want to try and act like your pro-character editor but every time you fall back saying that the devs don't want it. so how am i suppose to see your opinion. You don't care if its a mod but do if its a vanilla feature unless the devs are okay with it then your okay with it, wut thats such backwards logic that makes it look like your opinions are the same as the devs. Explain how its not.
As Fluff says, you are once more diverting roleplay into "you are not allowed to start with perfect colonists"
And again you brush over scenario editor entirely. "it does so much more than things that just affect balance". Which is exact same for character editor.
"in-balance is a minor part of its function" which is just false. Even something as minor as choosing your starting pet instead of it being random changes balance.
But even if that were true, storyteller settings also exist. Every single option, every single slider affects balance, it's literally made to do that. The very top option, Peaceful Mode, pretty much removes anything that is dangerous, and it's still not even close to the easiest settings.
The trolly problem?
The fundemental hypothetical used for ethics?
I guess you really arent familiar with them.
Either way, thats your opinion, not a fact.
The fact here is its not currently a focus for development.
The rest is up in the air, such as if it fits the themes at all. My few examples have already shown how this may be.
The rest is all you dude.