Topic on Talk:Ice Sheet Guide

I had to revert this page to the older version of it as there seems to be quite some disagreement on the contents of this page.

Before updating the page, please reach a consensus on the content of this page.

Yoshida Keiji claims that making caravans in Ice Sheet is cheesy and lame. So since that is only one of the nine parts of the guide, I re-added it so he can change that part if he thinks that caravans are unworthy.

RimWorld is a Colony simulation game with other genre mixes such as survival and strategy. Survival is going to dictate you to do anything to live another day and that is indisputable.

I looked at both versions of your "perfect" landing zone and your third agenda section. Basically, to you caravanning is "NOT" a game feature as you attempt to "excuse" yourself. You are just "escaping" Ice Sheet. Putting this into practical application:

• Start in Ice Sheet.
• Caravan out for whatever event (item stash, incapacitated refugee, enemy outpost, caravan request, etc).

So when you make a full game length analysis, you have spent 5% of your whole game in Ice Sheet, then 50% in Tundra and another 45% in Boreal Forest. Is that really an Ice Sheet game?

Of course, survival will naturally dictate anyone to move to a better location, but if you are going to keep doing that, then it's not an Ice Sheet guide but more like a Nomadic Life Guide.

Events are meant to be played when reasonably and rationally possible, it is a game feature. However, you display then in a perverse way as your main source of hunt and harvest...again... in "ANOTHER" biome...

I'm an ex-bodybuilder and you remind me of some people who always used to claim in social environments that: "they go to gym." While it is completely true that they enter the facility past its door. Whether they actually lift weights or not... is totally another matter... Then we ask ourselves...: Are "these" guys really going to Gym? Not only that they don't lift, they also occupy the power rack and spend half an hour scrolling their smartphones, making loud and disrupting chats and sitting another half hour on the bench machines. Only becoming a total annoyance for "real" sportsmen and sportswoman.

I don't know how to put things simpler than: "-Get Real.-" It's already simpler as it is.

Right... Yes... Caravans are NOT a game feature. Hard to answer when someone has such a good argument.

Like I already mention, the guide does not change if you land in the north pole, you still do quests to survive. And no, quests are rare in any biome, and many of them like peace talks and caravans request dont help you at all, the real values would be 95% ice sheet and 5% tundra and no, I never mention Boreal Forest because thats way too far.

You do quests and caravans in EVERY SINGLE biome, the difference here is that you wont just complete your object and run away because you want to stay a little longer to harvest local resources, which is the only reason I even write about it. Even if the quest happens in another ice sheet, caravans are still worth it and you should still try harder to harvest the local resources. I didnt write and it is not even possible to be perverse and use quests as main source of food since you cant force them to happen to begin with, it is something extra you do after you got clothing to tolerate the cold and thats what I wrote. Didnt you say we should "open mindedly" welcome all possibilities?

The landing zone is a recommendation and not required, it is a guide and we are suppose to give advises to help people survive. Not getting a good landing spot does not invalidate the guide. And like I said, if that bothers you so much I will make a separate page for it.

Good, you are bodybuilder, I am a computer science researcher. You teach me to lift weights and I teach you to write articles. Deal?

Let me put it simple for you: "You dont know what you talking about". Now quests are closer, more rewarding and viable, but they are still an extra and I never said you should rely on it. But they are important enough to deserve a topic about it.

This is starting to heat up quite some- I thought this was a place to actually discuss things, not to argue?

Anyway, I was thinking that the new guide would include something from both versions of the ice sheet guide. It's a compromise so that the two of you won't be arguing that much over things.

By the way, name-calling isn't the right thing to do when confronted with this issue- we each have our own playstyles and other things, and they might not disagree with each other, but name-calling alone isn't going to solve these issues. So, please keep things civil.

I went ahead and made a compromise- combining content from the two guides. From now on, you are free to edit it, just make sure not to argue over the edits.

Since I don't know an awful lot about ice sheet survival, I'll leave it to the two of you (and any other willing editors) to deal with this page.

I told him from the very beginning that he can go edit what he feels wrong instead of removing the whole thing and I will even help him to do so. And I dont know why he is telling me to "Get Real".

I dont think he will accept your version either, because he keeps saying that making world quests removes the "merit" of playing ice sheet... even if they are also in ice sheet.

We'll see on that. In the meantime, feel free to port sone of the content from your own ice sheet guide into this page.

Maybe later, to give him time to cool down.

I made some changes to my guide:

• I made it more obvious that the landing spot is only a recommendation and only "Not surrounded by mountains" has a big impact.

• I made it more obvious that starting traits are a recommendation and removed most of them, except for the butcher ones.

• I made it more obvious quests will not happen often and are only a addition to your raider meat diet. Also specifically mentioned quests in both ice sheet and tundra, so that everyone understand both are important, and no, there is no boreal forest.

More specifically, quests that matters and can provide any food are expected to happen only once per season. And you can not do it in the first season. You wont spend more than one day doing them, so if you get all quests in tundra you still only spend 3 out 60 year days in tundra, which is 5%.

And yes, I tested it. But I am not going to write that because readers only need to know that they need to go to any quests can be an opportunity to get food, even if they are not interested in the main objective, like rescuing a refugee.