Talk:Ideoligion

so i've been trying to revamp the moodlets page in my sandbox and something struck me it says this "Pawns will not attack innocent animals" under abhorrent however this would only mean direct hits meaning grenades could still hit and since the xml for the precept doesn't actually have any moodlet for responsible kills it shouldn't have any penalty for it though probably still cause the opinion loss and animal killed moodlet also some of the precepts every ideology has also have "classic" versions that aren't visible that are presumably for if you disable the system. i've been looking at the files myself cause its such a mess to just sort through, I see why some moodlets are missing on the page or why the ideology section on thoughts is incomplete since the thoughts are under the precept defs mostly

i've noted what is considered as innocent on the sandbox but the game is so confused on it to quote the check tag i had on it "Rimworld's AI is especially stupid here and i want to be sure regarding this, predators that can't go manhunter will literally hunt someone get shot, start fleeing become "innocent" and then hunt them again becoming "hostile" again repeating the cycle."

its mostly during their hunts, manhunter, or apart of a hostile faction. not fleeing mid-hunt, not downed, or post hunt devouring whatever child they killed. it seems you can also bleed animals and oddly enough not get penalized for it when they die from it, hell brings up the question of how the game detects if you were responsible for a animal's death, presumably you could also just burn them to death or even tox gas them to get away with it, maybe ghouls and mechs bypass this somehow.

Some memes are severely impactful and utterly change a playstyle, with additional tack-on effects that are not readily apparent.

I think a monolithic data table is not enough to encompass everything about every memes, and each meme should be given it's own page. This would allow for more in depth descriptions of the meme, analysis on their impact and more focused discussions.

The table can be kept on this page for ease of access, but I believe breakout pages should be made for each individual meme.

I agree but the main reason it hasn't happened is the amount of work, both in total, and per editing session. As it is, this covers about 85% of the detail and so its slipped in priority compared to other sections of wiki.

I know some strides have been taken, such as Blindsight but unless you or someone else would like to take a stab at it, it might stay on the backburner for a while.

In the ideologies creation menu, there is a box labled "Adjective," what does this do and where does the text appear in the game?

An Adjective is a descriptive word. Its the word used when the game wants to describe things as of the ideoligion. So like as a real life example:

Name: Islam

Member Noun: Muslim

Adjective: Islamic

As for when its used, its used anytime the game has to refer to something as specifically of or not of a given ideo. So for example, if you have the intense bigotry precept, your Adjective is "Victorist", and you have a building of a different ideoligious style in your base, your pawns will have a mood penalty saying: "Non-Victorist-style surroundings"

The style dominance section is (based on some personal testing--hopefully someone can corroborate this) slightly inaccurate, as well as incomplete. First, the incompleteness: it should be pointed out that the game counts "types" and not "tokens" when determining style dominance, e.g. two torch lamps in a single room are still worth only 5 points: they don't "stack." Also, the desired style has to *exceed* a difference of 10 points to be dominant, not merely be at least 10 points greater.

As it is, this page is very long and very information dense. This allows us to summarize the effects of the precepts, roles, rituals etc but means we have to rely on the other pages to provide sufficient detail on their effects. It also prevents comparative anaylsis of the different options.

So instead of making this page longer, the suggestion is to keep the table as is as a summary, but at the head of the section link to a dedicated page where the individual roles, their effects and their value can be discussed. Additionally each line in the table would link to its section on the dedicated page. For a similar concept see Persona weapons. For example, a graph like the one for Gunlink#Analysis can be created for shooting specialist to provide readers an idea of how much the DPS improves, and a version of the table from Aiming Time can also be included.

If it goes well, we can potentially roll the idea out to the parts of the page, especially the Precepts and the Rituals to allow proper coverage. Blindsight already is this to a certain extent. The same goes for the psycasts on Psycasts.

Thoughts, Opinions etc?

I fully agree that the page needs "spinning out" of sections into dedicated pages. I also think that creating the independent page on roles as described would be beneficial for future addition of information if needed.

Similarly, I would like to suggest moving the precepts tables onto their own page, putting in their place a smaller summary table (potentially in the style of this). I have tried to organise the precepts section by splitting the table into three, but its sheer size meant this had little effect. Plus, I anticipate that this section will only grow bigger over time as more information is added. So, this solution should improve readability by providing a useful overview and cutting page length substantially (~25%).

That small summary table is excellent. Personally I'd increase the image size to 32px to improve readability and use

! colspan="2"| Issue

to remove the extraneous column header, but otherwise its perfect!

Ideoligion page with your short summary table, Precepts page with the current big table, and as necessary, individual precept pages with details. The Nutrient Paste precept likely doesn't need its own page for example.

Thank you for the feedback, I will implement the changes over the next few days.

The Specialists are the most gameplay-impacting reason to take an Ideology so I find it important to keep them on the same page so I can compare the pros and cons.

I'd recommend moving the Leader and Moral Guide maybe but that'd have less impact.

To trim down the page I'd recommend moving sections: Style, Cultures, and maybe Structures as these have next to zero gameplay impact and I never read those sections. Possibly the charts for faction relations as well.

Maybe those elements can be collected into a Forming an Ideology page or an Ideology Structure page.

To be clear the idea is to spin off the role section (leaving a summary here) into its own singular page, not to have individual pages for each role.

Yep, when I use the page I'm scrolling up and down a lot. For example, how do I get a Medical Specialist? Oh Flesh Purity, what're the requirements for that? I should check the Body Modification to weigh the mood disadvantage, and so on.

I could still do that with roles moved, but I'd have to open another tab which would be annoying.

If we kept a short summary on the same page that'd be fine. Then we could have detailed stats on the dedicated page.

I went ahead and completely redid the Mechanics stub, although I feel that it's too big a wall of text. I think there's kind of a problem with this section in that it's prone to being redundant; this whole page is an overall explanation of the game's mechanics. I think what I (or someone else) should do is reorganize it into a sort of step-by-step list format that very briefly explains what each mechanic does along with a few examples. This is actually my first time working on a wiki, so I'm looking for any suggestions.

I think it's good! It serves as a nice overview, which could be helpful for those who have never played the expansion.

I added an even-more-broad overview, and a few subsections.

Thank you! I was worried it was too much of a solid wall of text, but your additions and formatting have made the section a whole lot better as well. A lot more manageable and contextualized.