Vault 88, anyone ever go with the overseer completely?

[Mr. Bufferlow]

I have played at least four saves, but I can never bring myself to do anything but the most beneficial criteria for the "Clem tests".

Not sure I would change and try it if I did know what happens, but he is just so baby kitten like I could never do one of the more extreme scenarios as listed in the tests.

[carl.wear]

Its a game so you can be as nice or horrible as you like.

You could always try all the options available and if you don't like the outcome, just reload a old save game.

[Death Approaches]

of course, every time! Clem can die for all I care, and you can make enough positive happiness to offset them going broke on your slots and getting addicted to your drinks and cycling... I like setting up a "casino room" near the ceiling, across floor a pit trap, that opens every 2 minutes with contraptions logic, and many an unlucky vaultie falls to their death, lands in a junk mortar, and is shot into the tunnel leading to the big water purifier.... you know, for fun.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3250558177

[🆄🅽🅲🅻🅴 🅹🅾]

Originally posted by Death Approaches:

of course, every time! :devilskiss: Clem can die for all I care, and you can make enough positive happiness to offset them going broke on your slots and getting addicted to your drinks and cycling... I like setting up a "casino room" near the ceiling, across floor a pit trap, that opens every 2 minutes with contraptions logic, and many an unlucky vaultie falls to their death, lands in a junk mortar, and is shot into the tunnel leading to the big water purifier.... you know, for fun.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3250558177

[PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Mr. Bufferlow:

I have played at least four saves, but I can never bring myself to do anything but the most beneficial criteria for the "Clem tests".

Not sure I would change and try it if I did know what happens, but he is just so baby kitten like I could never do one of the more extreme scenarios as listed in the tests.

That DLC always breaks for me. Never managed to get far on it.

[DouglasGrave]

I try every outcome as a matter of course, but my preferred result is to pick all the most benevolent experiment types, except for the Soda Fountain, which I select as the Mood Enhancer so that I have one experiment to satisfy Overseer Barstow (which gives me the speech check to keep her around at the end of the quests if I want her). So I end up with:

• Power Cycle 1000: Environmental enhancer
  
• Soda Fountain: Mood Enhancer
  
• Phoropter: Improved Eye Care
  
• Slot Machine: Lost Revenue

This gives no death chances for settlers, the best happiness for the Soda Fountain and Slot Machine (15 happinesseach), and middle happiness from the Phoropter (10 happiness). The power cycle remains bad, but I've never considered it worthwhile anyway, since even its best power production (4 power) requires an assigned settler and risks death.

The only reason I usually even build a power cycle is so that I can swap the +1 vault bonus to Endurance whenever I want.

The slot machines become expensive to build (500 caps per machine in addition to the normal components), but I see it as worthwhile for an automatic happiness supply that only requires 1 power to run.

[Bored Peon]

No, because if you have settlers die then there is a happiness penalty. That happiness penalty wreaks havoc on Sim Settlements and basically wont allow plots to ugprade.

Seen that happen enough times with Taffington having settlers that drown and Automatrons killing my Ten Pine provisoners.

Although my current Vault 88 could probably take losing a few settlers because it has a population of 142 currently.

[1142]

I did complete this quest during my 1st playthrough. Every other playthrough the overseer gets shot on sight.

[Lucus]

IMHO the only reason to use the settings that can kill settlers is ether if you want the unique passive dialog settlers will make or you don't care if the happiness drops because they die on occasion.

if you want a functional settlement with all the cruel options in use. i suggest you set up red rocket. no matter how unhappy they are that settlers keep dying you can't lose that settlement.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by Lucus:

IMHO the only reason to use the settings that can kill settlers is ether if you want the unique passive dialog settlers will make or you don't care if the happiness drops because they die on occasion.

if you want a functional settlement with all the cruel options in use. i suggest you set up red rocket. no matter how unhappy they are that settlers keep dying you can't lose that settlement.

You could also use Automatron robots to bolster the average happiness.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Originally posted by Lucus:

IMHO the only reason to use the settings that can kill settlers is ether if you want the unique passive dialog settlers will make or you don't care if the happiness drops because they die on occasion.

if you want a functional settlement with all the cruel options in use. i suggest you set up red rocket. no matter how unhappy they are that settlers keep dying you can't lose that settlement.

You could also use Automatron robots to bolster the average happiness.

Nope, the death penalty is target happiness modifier.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

You could also use Automatron robots to bolster the average happiness.

Nope, the death penalty is target happiness modifier.

Them being present will still tend to keep the overall result up, though I'd want to check which of the couple of scripting things handles it for their exact details since there're some oddities in how it applies things that give us results like these:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2928126190

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Nope, the death penalty is target happiness modifier.

Them being present will still tend to keep the overall result up, though I'd want to check which of the couple of scripting things handles it for their exact details since there're some oddities in how it applies things that give us results like these:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2928126190

Since you refuse to provide actual evidence for your claims as usual I will provide it for you.

10 settlers = 80 target happiness - 20 death penalty is 60 happiness.
10 Robots = 50 target happiness - 20 death penalty is 30 happiness.
10 settlers and 5 robots = 70 Target happiness -20 death penalty is 50 happiness.
10 settlers and 10 robots = 65 target happiness -20 death penalty is 45 happiness.

So not only was your advice wrong, it would actually make the situation worse.

If you had done your research and provided your evidence before making the original claim or when you continued to dispute you were correct you could have saved yourself from embarrassment, having to admit you were wrong, and causing yet another argument.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Since you refuse to provide actual evidence for your claims as usual I will provide it for you.

I didn't refuse, as there was never a request. Had you made one, I might have provided you with information.

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

10 settlers = 80 target happiness - 20 death penalty is 60 happiness.
10 Robots = 50 target happiness - 20 death penalty is 30 happiness.
10 settlers and 5 robots = 70 Target happiness -20 death penalty is 50 happiness.
10 settlers and 10 robots = 65 target happiness -20 death penalty is 45 happiness.

So not only was your advice wrong, it would actually make the situation worse.

If you had done your research and provided your evidence before making the original claim or when you continued to dispute you were correct you could have saved yourself from embarrassment, having to admit you were wrong, and causing yet another argument.

The mathematics is trivial, but I'm afraid my imagination just goes a bit further than yours when it comes to inflicting cruelty on settlers, since you've based your conclusion on the unstated assumption that all regular settler needs are met.

If you're willing to run abusive vault experiments on your settlers, you may also be interested in skimping on their basic needs, which is where robots come in to keep the settlement functional. It's a "robot-policed gulag" idea I've brought up before:

For example:

Originally posted by Defense + unsheltered beds:

10 settlers = 30 target happiness - 20 death penalty is 10 happiness.
10 Robots = 50 target happiness - 20 death penalty is 30 happiness.
10 settlers and 5 robots = 36.333 Target happiness -20 death penalty is 16.333 happiness.
10 settlers and 10 robots = 40 target happiness -20 death penalty is 20 happiness.

With a suitable injection of robots, you can keep your experimental vault hellhole full of starving victims above the borderline of outright revolt in the face of occasional fatalities.

The actual happiness levels will likely be a little bit higher since many of the vault experiment options give happiness.

[Bored Peon]

Maybe you should spend more time READING the current discussion than trying to figure out ways to create arguments with other in the discussion.

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Originally posted by Lucus:

IMHO the only reason to use the settings that can kill settlers is ether if you want the unique passive dialog settlers will make or you don't care if the happiness drops because they die on occasion.

if you want a functional settlement with all the cruel options in use. i suggest you set up red rocket. no matter how unhappy they are that settlers keep dying you can't lose that settlement.

You could also use Automatron robots to bolster the average happiness.

Absolutely NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about depriving settlers of the basics. It was was all about using the cruelty options for the Vault-Tec experiments and DYING SETTLERS.

When I pointed out you were wrong you came back with some bugged settlement with 0 population to try to defend yourself:

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Nope, the death penalty is target happiness modifier.

Them being present will still tend to keep the overall result up, though I'd want to check which of the couple of scripting things handles it for their exact details since there're some oddities in how it applies things that give us results like these:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2928126190

STILL absolutely no mention of depriving settlers of the basics.

This is why nobody wants to discuss anything with you.
You failed to provide any evidence to your point, twice.
When it was proven you were wrong, you changed the argument, as usual.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Maybe you should spend more time READING the current discussion than trying to figure out ways to create arguments with other in the discussion.

It was you who chose to address me with a disagreement based on your personal assumptions, so who is trying to create an argument there?

If you've been reading carefully, it should be evident to you that nowhere is it stated that the settlers in question have all their settlement needs met. Why would you assume it when they're victims of a cruel vault experiment?

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

When I pointed out you were wrong you came back with some bugged settlement with 0 population to try to defend yourself:

The settlement picture is more interesting for the 120 happiness than the 0 population, and is a gentle reminder that the exact details of the scripting don't always produce the result you might expect from looking at a simple calculation.

It's also comedy, because the abnormally high happiness is the result of the former residents repeatedly getting murdered after hating the Brotherhood taking over their farm.

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

This is why nobody wants to discuss anything with you.
You failed to provide any evidence to your point, twice.
When it was proven you were wrong, you changed the argument, as usual.

I'm not obligated to stick to pedestrian concepts just because you find the more interesting ones confusing.

You can just say you were only thinking of a traditional settlement and move on.