Read moreI get what you mean about a framing issue.
You're saying that if it were presented as "here's a prospect, take them as a colonist or get a debuff" that would feel different to "here's your new colonist, keep them or kick them out for a debuff."
We'd at least get the illusion of a choice, even if the outcome was the same.
Technically, that's probably correct. And yes, you could extend that to other events.
And to all the things I listed. The person who's uncomfortable turning away a dying diseased stranger is probably also uncomfortable selling a lethal pleasure-drug to strangers.
Does this kind of samaritan exist? Definitely (I'm probably one myself).
Would declaring that all colonists feel that way improve the game? I don't think so.
That's building a specific moral view onto the existing colonists (one they don't already have), reducing the storytelling scope.
- Want a bunch of isolationists, maybe b...
Colonists definitely have some specific moral beliefs, definitely. They make perfect sense for some backstories. Less so for others. This is an area of the game I've long wanted to improve.
Yeah but the issue is: the game makes a difference between killing a human (from another faction, or neutral) and killing a colonist. My colonists seem fine with us attacking visitors unprovoked (people just passing by), so they should be fine with us not taking in (or even killing) a refugee. Tbh i dont see why this event in particular has to be different than the regular transport pod crash
Honestly it would be better if the responded to more things, not less, but I see your point.
Im on OP's side on this. All that you said makes sense Tynan, except I dont know who invited the person to join the colony? The survivor crash landed. He is a stranger, not a colonist. If we want to help him, we can recruit him. Or we can take him as prisoner, or let him die. But who said he can join the colony just for crashing here?
The person is refugee. That means he invited himself, just like people fleeing danger who enter a country outside a border crossing. You can take those people who are now inside your community and banish them, or kill them, but there is no mind-control wall you can use to simply prevent them from entering your community. They walk in, and you have to choose how to respond.
I would prefer they functioned like the refugees where I can help them, then choose if they can stay, rather than being forced to accept a pyro with crappy skills just to be nice today.
You're not forced to help them at all. You can immediately kill or banish them. They're not willing to leave since they have nowhere else to go, so there is no "politely ask them to leave" option.
Read moreThanks for replying, Tynan. I appreciate you taking time away from making the game to reply - though I'm unconvinced by the reasoning.
You could make exactly the same argument for every event that offers a colonist. Whether they're a regular crash landed person, someone fleeing raiders or whatever. For each of those, there's a choice of what kind of colony we area, which includes the choice to reject the person.
Except this one. For this event, there is NO choice, and it's not a dilemma, because a dilemma is built around a choice. This is a forced circumstance without any agency to make that decision, I only have choice on how I respond to a decision that's made for me.
The crashlanded person is automatically a colonist, like it or not. Which is the problem.
If this event worked like the other colonist-with-a-trade-off events, it would be great. We'd be making a choice - do we rescue this person and accept the costs, or do we refuse? Sometimes...
For this event, there is NO choice, and it's not a dilemma, because a dilemma is built around a choice.
There is a choice. You can banish them, or kill them, or whatever.
We could alter the UI to make it look different (i.e. instead of banish them as a colonist, you reject them as a joiner, with the same mood outcomes), but that's just re-labeling what's already happening. Maybe we'll do that since this has come up before. I think it would solve the concern. It's just a framing issue. Framing changes solve game design problems all the time.
Read more"If I make a choice to make and sell space-meth, they're ok with that. If we get raiders attack, and I leave them all to bleed out, they're ok with that, too. If a slaver comes past, and I don't pay to rescue any of the slaves, my colonists don't bat an eyelid. If I sell luciferium to a backwards tribe, knowing it will slowly and agonisingly kill whoever takes it, my colonists are ...
They came to you for help. You have the choice of helping them, leaving them to die, harvesting their organs.
But whatever you do, your colonists know what happened and will respond psychologically to the outcome. You can't just make everyone pretend it never happened.
This is as designed. It's, a moral dilemma, and a choice between emotions and resources, and a piece of story. What kind of colony are you?
Think you could do some patchy-patch?
It would probably be a good thing to be honest.
You can turn the Marraige Spot!?!
Damnit.
No...
We'd never remove vanilla content to make an expansion. Royalty just adds some quest content on top of the ones in the base game.
My issue with this is that since a reactionless drive exists, there's no reason you can't accelerate to any arbitrary fraction of light speed. At a constant 1g acceleration it takes a little less than a year to accelerate to 99% of light speed. Because of relativistic time dilation, if you're going fast enough, the time elapsed during a journey perceived by the crew could be many times less than the time perceived by a stationary observer. Basically, any ship equipped with a Johnson-Tanaka drive is a potential starship.
Once you accelerate to 99.9% c, a journey of 10 light years would take less than 6 months from your perspective - just add a year to speed up and a year to slow down. You wouldn't even need cryptosleep caskets for many interstellar journeys.
It depends on the assumptions of course, but as I have the universe written:
Trade ships don't have JT drives.
JT drives don't give 1g.
Trade ships don't have foreshields to block lightspeed dust impacts (which you need to not have your ship annihilated if you go fast enough for time dilation to be really serious).
10 light years is very close, a more typical journey would be more like 50-100 ly (to get to a system with anything interesting in it).
And even in your hyper-optimistic scenario you're describing a 30-month journey. Without cryptosleep you need a ton of food, a ton of redundant life support, a ton of space to not go crazy being in a tin can for 2.5 years (all heavily rad-shielded), and lots of other things neither of us are even thinking of.
In any case, this is all way, way outside the scope of "give them some dog leather and ask to hitch a ride" from the OP.
Does this mean that trade ships don't travel between planets?
I ask because I'm not sure how that would work, and had generally assumed trade ships did indeed make the long hauls to other systems, while the Rim system was a nameless rock along the way to a real destination.
It seems pretty cool, but I've got a ton of questions about it too. Where do trade ships come from, do they have bases planetside, how do they maintain themselves, are they even manned at all, and why is it they can't assemble the means to make a long-haul trip to barter their way to a better world with space oddities.
I'm prone to making up lore, but if we've got more somewhere, I'd like to devour it.
The game doesn't nail down the details of the trade ships, but if you read the universe backstory you can infer that at the minimum they are not interstellar ships. They could be intraplanetary, cislunar, or interplanetary, it's not really specified.
It's like asking, "I'm stuck in Bangkok with $50, why can't I just pay a passing rickshaw to take me back to New York?"
Or, "Why can't Elon Musk just fly the Falcon 9 rocket to Alpha Centauri?"
RimWorld depicts space travel realistically. Moving across a planet is very different from traveling to a moon, which is very different from traveling to another planet, which is many many leagues below traveling to another star.
Consider: You're aware that there are people in Earth orbit now. You know a few people went to the moon once, but it's far harder than just going to orbit. You know there is talk of some day going to Mars, but it's much harder than the moon and nobody's ever done it (it takes months to get to Mars, where the moon takes 3 days). Going to Uranus would be way, way harder than going to Mars (years instead of months). And going to another star is just unimaginably harder on every level (thousands of years at current technology).
In the gam...
Read moreRead moreI don't think I said they should be equal and framing my point as such seems a bit unfair. I explicintly said:
"It doesn't have to be equal or even better"
But being cut off from the anima tree when the empire path does not do that seems really, really weird. Especially since the game doesn't tell you that. At least, I don't think it does. I'll double check the quest text next time but I don't remember it saying anything about that.
Between the lack of permits, the harder raids, losing out on the empire as a trading partner and having no speech from the throne mood buffs, the deserter path would still be harder if it allowed you to use the anima tree and gave you something else on top of that.
Again, let me clarify that I don't mind that the deserter path is harder. What I do mind is that you're cutting yourself off from a lot of tools by choosing that and some of that seems incredibly arbitrary, which is probably my bigg...
Yeah, I agree it's definitely the weakest of the paths for a few reasons.
And you're correct I misread your original point somewhat, sorry.
I love how shoopy has majestic eyes while the cows in the back got big ass foreheads
Cows look like they're worried about their taxes.
It didn't start that way tho imo, OG nobles were a serious trade-off.
Yes, absolutely! Having to have multiple throne rooms and several pawns unable to work was a HUGE tradeoff! While I agree that that was a bit much, I feel when they "buffed" the noble path, they should also have done something for the deserter path. It doesn't have to be equal or even better, but perhaps it doesn't need to be shooting myself in both feet, full auto.
Right now it's like... it's like picking between two guns but the worse gun has even more drawbacks. Pick the bolt action rifle or a charge lance but if you pick the bolt action rifle you do not get to sniper rifles ever... How is that even a choice? And why is that related? D:
I actually don't think there's a need for every play path to be equally challenging. It could even be better if they aren't.
We do it with biomes, for examples. Obviously not every biome is of equal difficulty. And this has a lot of positive effects.
There's a game design concept I call 'implicit difficulty selection' where you get players to implicitly tune their own difficulty level to match their preferences without making them click a thing in a menu. There are a million ways to do this large and small, and RimWorld does many of them, but things like biome and play path selection are a few more.
I don't think the deserter path is perfect (nothing is, of course), but I'm satisfied if it's implicitly harder than the other paths.