I am within the LGBT spectrum, I love that people in rimworld can be gay, but I am also a horrid powergamer. I feel it is wrongly implemented, it being a trait makes me weigh it against having something more useful, as opposed to something that is really only for the fluff. Its basically this, would I rather have Gay, or industrious in my starting 3, industrious always. Do I want to have gay pawns? Of course, but gay just does not compare to literally any other trait.
While you are at it, you could even add more depth to sexuality, and relationships. Actually have Hetero 8e a thing, and rolled against Gay, Bisexual, Polyamory, fun stuff like that. With that said, I'd say that simply separating sexuality from traits, and being instead a 1 or 0 roll (with gay being less likely of course) alongside the already present traits, it'd make for a more interesting, and a more prevalent inclusion of sexuality.
well i think this suggestion should probably also fall to the dynamic traits suggestion.
coz, i've known lesbian/bisexual people who became straight, and straight people becoming lesbian/bisexual. one of my previous GFs used to be bisexual during her highschool days in an all-girls school, and became straight when she stepped into college.
so i'm not entirely convinced that gay/lesbian/bisexual is a permanent thing.
--------------
as for dynamic traits : i was thinking there shouldn't really be a 3 limitation.
dynamic traits should be from zero-to-whatever, with each pawn gaining or losing traits over time, depending on their own experience.
Personally, I see being heterosexual as being normal. It makes sense that being homosexual or bisexual as a trait, to me at least. For homosexuality at least, being such would be incredibly detrimental to the continuance of a fledgling colony, as those individuals aren't contributing to the gene pool through reproduction. A trait is something that distinguishes them from the masses, the masses are general heterosexual, so having homosexuality as a trait makes sense.
One of my most prized fighters has gay as a trait, but had he not rolled with such good combat stats i'd have let him die rather than rescue him. Gay people can still be useful in game, but they are still gay, and it is an identifying trait that distinguishes them. It is certainly a flaw on a backwater planet where people are trying to build a colony in a place that would rather see them destroyed.
I have two friends, in real life, named marcus (though one's is spelled markus). When one of our friends goes "anyone seen marcus" we say "Marcus or gay markus?". When I think of Marcus, the first three things I think is fat, guitarist, and crybaby. When I think of Markus, I think tall, gay, and strong.
Heterosexuality is normal for you. Homosexuality is normal for others, and bisexuality is normal for still others. Your normal shouldn't be imposed on others.
Also, one doesn't "become" bisexual or straight or gay. One might go into a same-sex relationship, or opposite-sex relationship, but that doesn't change their sexuality.
I agree that sexuality should be separated from the trait system. Every person has a sexuality that's their own, even if heterosexuality is more common than others. You shouldn't be gay OR some other personality trait.
Gotta second Cibi's suggestion; the current implementation suggests that LGBT people are about half as diverse as the norm, which is, yeah, quite weird.
(Also, the thing about gay people not reproducing isn't strictly true, with in vitro fertilization and whatnot, but I suppose is a decent enough approximation since making things otherwise would require Tynan to develop additional systems for it)
Quote from: keylocke on July 16, 2016, 11:53:35 PM
well i think this suggestion should probably also fall to the dynamic traits suggestion.
coz, i've known lesbian/bisexual people who became straight, and straight people becoming lesbian/bisexual. one of my previous GFs used to be bisexual during her highschool days in an all-girls school, and became straight when she stepped into college.
so i'm not entirely convinced that gay/lesbian/bisexual is a permanent thing.
--------------
as for dynamic traits : i was thinking there shouldn't really be a 3 limitation.
dynamic traits should be from zero-to-whatever, with each pawn gaining or losing traits over time, depending on their own experience.
That's harder to code than a simple system that more or less works alongside the already present social system. There are marrages and family trees, why can't sexuality be moved there instead of it taking a trait slot.
Quote from: Vagabond on July 16, 2016, 11:58:23 PM
Personally, I see being heterosexual as being normal. It makes sense that being homosexual or bisexual as a trait, to me at least. For homosexuality at least, being such would be incredibly detrimental to the continuance of a fledgling colony, as those individuals aren't contributing to the gene pool through reproduction. A trait is something that distinguishes them from the masses, the masses are general heterosexual, so having homosexuality as a trait makes sense.
One of my most prized fighters has gay as a trait, but had he not rolled with such good combat stats i'd have let him die rather than rescue him. Gay people can still be useful in game, but they are still gay, and it is an identifying trait that distinguishes them. It is certainly a flaw on a backwater planet where people are trying to build a colony in a place that would rather see them destroyed.
I have two friends, in real life, named marcus (though one's is spelled markus). When one of our friends goes "anyone seen marcus" we say "Marcus or gay markus?". When I think of Marcus, the first three things I think is fat, guitarist, and crybaby. When I think of Markus, I think tall, gay, and strong.
This has little to do with my suggestion. I am making this suggestion 8ased upon the game balance, gay being a trait means it has to compete against all other traits. It ends up just being a filler trait instead of something substantial. Its just in the wrong place, sexuality should be coded into the social system.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on July 17, 2016, 12:41:53 AM
Heterosexuality is normal for you. Homosexuality is normal for others, and bisexuality is normal for still others. Your normal shouldn't be imposed on others.
Also, one doesn't "become" bisexual or straight or gay. One might go into a same-sex relationship, or opposite-sex relationship, but that doesn't change their sexuality.
I agree that sexuality should be separated from the trait system. Every person has a sexuality that's their own, even if heterosexuality is more common than others. You shouldn't be gay OR some other personality trait.
Thats my logic, instead of having gay take up a coveted trait slot, and for the sake of better simulation, make it so everyone has a sexuality and maybe other personality traits asside from the more buff oriented traits like industrious
Quote from: Cibi on July 17, 2016, 03:11:53 AM
Thats my logic, instead of having gay take up a coveted trait slot, and for the sake of better simulation, make it so everyone has a sexuality and maybe other personality traits asside from the more buff oriented traits like industrious
I fail to see how it would make a "better simulation" for everyone. The change would just add an extra trait for people who prefer having only gay pawns. ???
The fact it's a trait makes it incredibly rare for two gay people of the same gender to meet each other. I haven't seen this in any of my colonies. The trait might as well be called "no relationships".
Quote from: b0rsuk on July 17, 2016, 05:34:59 AMThe fact it's a trait makes it incredibly rare for two gay people of the same gender to meet each other. I haven't seen this in any of my colonies. The trait might as well be called "no relationships".
This cannot be emphasized enough.
Quote from: b0rsuk on July 17, 2016, 05:34:59 AM
The fact it's a trait makes it incredibly rare for two gay people of the same gender to meet each other. I haven't seen this in any of my colonies. The trait might as well be called "no relationships".
I have seen a gay woman in my colony, begin a relationship with a straight one. It didn't last, but can happen appearently.
i think they should also include bestiality and necrophilia.
yes. i'm serious. haha.
edit : oh wait, in case people don't get sarcasm.
no i'm not.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on July 17, 2016, 12:41:53 AM
Heterosexuality is normal for you. Homosexuality is normal for others, and bisexuality is normal for still others. Your normal shouldn't be imposed on others.
Also, one doesn't "become" bisexual or straight or gay. One might go into a same-sex relationship, or opposite-sex relationship, but that doesn't change their sexuality.
I agree that sexuality should be separated from the trait system. Every person has a sexuality that's their own, even if heterosexuality is more common than others. You shouldn't be gay OR some other personality trait.
There is a reason why I consider it normal, and it isn't just based on my own personal habits, which I haven't discussed because it isn't anyone's business and not something I believe should be broadcasted onto the internet.
Deviancy. Homosexuality, Bisexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, cannibalism, ect. There is a reason why they are considered deviant - they stray from the norm of society. Admittedly, at different times and/or places, some deviant behaviors were considered normal or acceptable. Personally, I believe in the "to each their own", so if someone has permission to eat a corpse, they should be able to. Or if they have permission to have sex with that corpse, sure. Or permission to do both. However, even with permission and the law on their side, it'd still be deviant behavior. Most people don't have sex with, or eat corpses.
If you wish to dress up as a baby and be spanked for breastfed, dress up like a horse and have a woman lead you around a corral, if you wish to have six wives who may or may not be all sisters, I believe you should be allowed to do so. It would STILL be deviant behavior, but to reiterate, I'm all for people being able to explore their deviancy.
I don't think we need a LGBT debate here in order to post in support of, or in opposition of this suggestion.
Personally, it would be nice to see a split on traits - move some of them into a different category, physical based and personality based. For example, sanguine - don't get me wrong I love having pawns with it, but that is a personality trait while you have physical traits like too smart, which suggests having a better learning ability or jogger which amplifies movement. Not only would this improve the variety of characters (more traits = more complexity) but it could open up the possibility of some interesting personality and skill combinations as a result of it.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a balancing nightmare, nor am I saying it would be as fun as it seems to me. But maybe worth a prototype effort?
Let's not get so extreme. I call homosexuality "not normal" in the same sense as being left handed is not normal. About 10% of humans are homosexual, it doesn't bother me. It becomes a deviancy when you have a gay person forcibly hitting on another against his/her will, but heterosexuals also do that. Really, the world and society have MUCH bigger issues than homosexuality. I'd rather be friends with a homosexual than someone who's very religious.
Quote from: makkenhoff on July 17, 2016, 01:09:27 PM
Personally, it would be nice to see a split on traits - move some of them into a different category, physical based and personality based. For example, sanguine - don't get me wrong I love having pawns with it, but that is a personality trait while you have physical traits like too smart, which suggests having a better learning ability or jogger which amplifies movement. Not only would this improve the variety of characters (more traits = more complexity) but it could open up the possibility of some interesting personality and skill combinations as a result of it.
agreed. which is why i mentioned about dynamic traits earlier, since i also believe that traits can be divided into several categories.
ie :
-sexual preference
-physical traits
-intellectual traits
-psychological traits
-etc..
some traits are permanent, some traits are dynamic, and i also don't think there should be a 3 trait limit to each pawn.
i don't think it's a complicated solution, since it actually solves a lot of issues.
You have to remember that while separating traits into different categories might be for the better, it'll also cause quite the headache when updating characters given by backers. I imagine most people who spent the extra cash on getting their own character into generation wouldn't be too thrilled to find out a new trait system fucked with the set up preferences. Specifically those who went as far as the Pirate King pack ($120 value).
To be fair it's not just the average player who thinks the sexuality system should be separate from traits, there are a few moderators who think the same thing but it's a very basic thing that should be pushed to a later update unless Tynan gets a wild hair.
Quote from: Nimander on July 17, 2016, 04:13:38 AM
Quote from: Cibi on July 17, 2016, 03:11:53 AM
Thats my logic, instead of having gay take up a coveted trait slot, and for the sake of better simulation, make it so everyone has a sexuality and maybe other personality traits asside from the more buff oriented traits like industrious
I fail to see how it would make a "better simulation" for everyone. The change would just add an extra trait for people who prefer having only gay pawns. ???
Its a better simulation because my idea actually logs every pawns sexuality, and they get a separate roll on it to see whether or not they are gay. The current system is a little stupid, Gay has to compete with every other trait, making it both rare, and undesirable. Simply put, I'd rather have Sanguine than gay, and gay already is in a sea of traits, so getting it in the first place is just hard.
I feel to better represent reality, as a simulation, you see, that the system should be moved entirely to the new social system, and that every pawn makes a secondary sexuality role alongside their already present traits. Everyone has a sexuality, and LGBT is a bit more common than portrayed
Quote from: makkenhoff on July 17, 2016, 01:09:27 PM
I don't think we need a LGBT debate here in order to post in support of, or in opposition of this suggestion.
Personally, it would be nice to see a split on traits - move some of them into a different category, physical based and personality based. For example, sanguine - don't get me wrong I love having pawns with it, but that is a personality trait while you have physical traits like too smart, which suggests having a better learning ability or jogger which amplifies movement. Not only would this improve the variety of characters (more traits = more complexity) but it could open up the possibility of some interesting personality and skill combinations as a result of it.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a balancing nightmare, nor am I saying it would be as fun as it seems to me. But maybe worth a prototype effort?
Yea, I almost made the same suggestion, but I figured that'd both get a lot of backlash, and probably no dev support. I like the idea of splitting physical and personality traits, maybe in a 2 and 2 format. Reduce the overall amount of traits in a single category, but giving the possibility for more traits, I think it'd be balanced.
Quote from: Ramsis on July 17, 2016, 05:08:17 PM
To be fair it's not just the average player who thinks the sexuality system should be separate from traits, there are a few moderators who think the same thing but it's a very basic thing that should be pushed to a later update unless Tynan gets a wild hair.
Good, I mean, I am not saying this is an urgent issue, but I do want to see it happen. I'd love for the character I have in game to be gay, because, well, I am in that sort of relationship right now..., but alas, I see bloodlust and cannibal in the same random, and I can't not select that.
Quote
Its a better simulation because my idea actually logs every pawns sexuality, and they get a separate roll on it to see whether or not they are gay. The current system is a little stupid, Gay has to compete with every other trait, making it both rare, and undesirable. Simply put, I'd rather have Sanguine than gay, and gay already is in a sea of traits, so getting it in the first place is just hard.
I feel to better represent reality, as a simulation, you see, that the system should be moved entirely to the new social system, and that every pawn makes a secondary sexuality role alongside their already present traits. Everyone has a sexuality, and LGBT is a bit more common than portrayed
Would it not be better, to represent reality, as a simulation, that it compete with the other traits rather than there be a one in four chance? Unless you are for stacking the percentage to still make it rare?
Just looking at wikipedia's article on it, that takes in to account the world population as well as a break down of individual countries, most places are sitting at 1-7%. The average population per state in the USA is 3.8%. For the sake of argument, we could just knuckle down and accept a 10% as the world population being LGBT (which according to the data, is more than fair). So characters could have a 90% chance to be "straight", and you could split the 10% up between the L, G, B, and T. I think you'd have more LGBT's with the current system. . .
I made this suggestion in the past, regarding expanding the trait system. I wouldn't be opposed to having a sexuality category for traits, that allows people to unify or fray based on sexual orientation along with the rest of the the web. https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=17605.msg191901#msg191901
Quote from: keylocke on July 17, 2016, 12:33:15 PM
i think they should also include bestiality and necrophilia.
yes. i'm serious. haha.
edit : oh wait, in case people don't get sarcasm.
no i'm not.
i
was going to pop in here an make jokes about how this is a dangerous discussion that will lead to the worst kind of internet trolls.. an has done before.
then i saw this quote an i just had to point out.. as fucked up as i think necrophilia an beastiality are, we already have cannibals. we have players that make cannibal only colonies.. we have players that making psychically dull cannibal colonies no less. I feel like Rimworld's stories benefit by making players confront these things. I know id let the beastiality guy die horrible to a man eater pack... but not everyone knows that instinctively....
Quote from: Vagabond on July 17, 2016, 10:49:33 PM
Quote
Its a better simulation because my idea actually logs every pawns sexuality, and they get a separate roll on it to see whether or not they are gay. The current system is a little stupid, Gay has to compete with every other trait, making it both rare, and undesirable. Simply put, I'd rather have Sanguine than gay, and gay already is in a sea of traits, so getting it in the first place is just hard.
I feel to better represent reality, as a simulation, you see, that the system should be moved entirely to the new social system, and that every pawn makes a secondary sexuality role alongside their already present traits. Everyone has a sexuality, and LGBT is a bit more common than portrayed
Would it not be better, to represent reality, as a simulation, that it compete with the other traits rather than there be a one in four chance? Unless you are for stacking the percentage to still make it rare?
Just looking at wikipedia's article on it, that takes in to account the world population as well as a break down of individual countries, most places are sitting at 1-7%. The average population per state in the USA is 3.8%. For the sake of argument, we could just knuckle down and accept a 10% as the world population being LGBT (which according to the data, is more than fair). So characters could have a 90% chance to be "straight", and you could split the 10% up between the L, G, B, and T. I think you'd have more LGBT's with the current system. . .
I made this suggestion in the past, regarding expanding the trait system. I wouldn't be opposed to having a sexuality category for traits, that allows people to unify or fray based on sexual orientation along with the rest of the the web. https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=17605.msg191901#msg191901
to continue the quote line an because in for a penny in for a pound. I counter your counter by pointing out its really easy to weight the percentages in a random roll so you get a close approximation to
your version of reality. I dont think they should though, they should pick a different weight, because this IS THE FUTURE AN ITS NOT THE NOW WHERE WE KILL LGBT PEOPLE FOR BEING DIFFERENT!!!!
sometimes, reality is not a good definer of sensible or good design :\ im probably not coming back to this thread, but i like the sound of divvying up traits into categories, and definately we need to put sexuality as its own stat, because everyone has one an there are lots of flavours of it.
It would make sense to me for sexual orientation to be something other than trait-defined. As already mentioned, as long as it's part of the pool of starting traits people will be selecting against it because other traits have more mechanically valuable effects.
Quote from: rexx1888 on July 18, 2016, 07:43:35 AM
Quote from: keylocke on July 17, 2016, 12:33:15 PM
i think they should also include bestiality and necrophilia.
yes. i'm serious. haha.
edit : oh wait, in case people don't get sarcasm.
no i'm not.
i was going to pop in here an make jokes about how this is a dangerous discussion that will lead to the worst kind of internet trolls.. an has done before.
then i saw this quote an i just had to point out.. as fucked up as i think necrophilia an beastiality are, we already have cannibals. we have players that make cannibal only colonies.. we have players that making psychically dull cannibal colonies no less. I feel like Rimworld's stories benefit by making players confront these things. I know id let the beastiality guy die horrible to a man eater pack... but not everyone knows that instinctively....
interesting point. now i wanna add moar suggestions.
how about S&M? let's bring back those torture cages from the previous alphas. ;D
I love that Rimworld includes explicitly gay (and trans!) characters, but I agree that decoupling it from the Trait system would be a nice idea, assuming it's not too much of a headache from an implementation point of view. It might even be nice if it could be something along the lines of the Kinsey scale — after all, some people are totally gay, some are totally straight, and a lot of folks fall somewhere in between. ;D
I think, for now having it as a trait while interpawn relations aren't really super fleshed out is okay. From the standpoint of having random traits and skills that can be all over the place.
Later on though, I'd imagine stuff like sexuality or hostility might be integrated in some sort of expansion on pawn personalities. They could easily become something like a sliding scale so people can run from all sorts of things on a lot of personality traits, which would free up traits to give more unique benefits or problems in the future.
At least that's how I see it, right now pawns are dice rolls on conversations and piles of skills no matter how much you dress it up. Later on that might change.
As an asexual individual, I would like to see sexuality removed from the traits and given it's own value. Any pawn would have a set kind of attraction limits. Attraction to same gender, different gender, both same and different gender, neither same nor different gender. The chances might be weighted, with Different Gender being most common, Same and Both less common, and Neither relatively rare.
I am more than okay with a weighted chance for sexuality. I have a game design of my own where 80-90% of characters will be straight, and 10-20% will be bi or homosexual (I would have gone with more "realistic" numbers, but I'm using 10-sided-dice, so it's easier).
I am also for somewhat higher rates than what can be found on Wikipedia; As rexx points out, people get killed for being openly gay or bi, so I have a pretty strong feeling that the reported percentage is considerably lower than reality; Hopefully in the future many of these particular atrocities will be less common (to be replace by cannibalism and human-skin clothing, apparently) so people will be more open about who they are.
I am definitely also in favor of other sexualities represented; Bisexuality, Asexuality, Even allowances for polyamorous relationships.
I'm... not at all sure I'd speak in favor of bestiality or pedophilia, no matter the other atrocities that are common Rimworld; That's beyond where I'd draw the line. Homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. are recognized as healthy expressions of human sexuality (even if not universally so) whereas those are not.
Also, BDSM may be a thing, but it's not a sexuality. I'm not even sure how exactly it would be represented in the game, considering sex is limited to some hearts periodically floating up from the bed.
The "it's the future, it's space" argument is deeply flawed for one simple reason: We are dealing with people from all eras of humanity. Maybe glitterworld colonists might have a higher chance of deviating than urbworlders who'd be similar to us. But what of Indworlders? During our industrial age, women hadn't even had the right to vote yet, and homes were incredibly nuclear with gender roles still in place. Medieval worlds, well, we can imagine some church involve there. . .Caveworlds, while we can't say for sure what they did back then, we know that only men and women can have children together, and since we are here to talk about this, we know that lgbt inclinations must not have been to much of an issue.
Then again, maybe in Tynan's universe it has always been common and accepted all throughout time.
Anyone else find it amusing when a post start "I am this [. . .] so [. . .]". What I am or am not doesn't matter, I just want the game to be as realistic as possible. Just saying, I want it all in there.
Quote from: Vagabond on July 19, 2016, 02:10:27 PM
The "it's the future, it's space" argument is deeply flawed for one simple reason: We are dealing with people from all eras of humanity. Maybe glitterworld colonists might have a higher chance of deviating than urbworlders who'd be similar to us. But what of Indworlders? During our industrial age, women hadn't even had the right to vote yet, and homes were incredibly nuclear with gender roles still in place. Medieval worlds, well, we can imagine some church involve there. . .Caveworlds, while we can't say for sure what they did back then, we know that only men and women can have children together, and since we are here to talk about this, we know that lgbt inclinations must not have been to much of an issue.
Traits don't describe what is socially normative, just what
is. People who would be described in modern terms as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender have always been around, even if the societies in which they lived attempted to suppress such behavior.
I wish everytime the gay trait get mentioned the thread becomes a monstrously long political correctness debate.
But i digress simply put I believe it the 'gay trait' should be recorded in the menu with pawns diets and other stats rather then the traits system. As they like op mentioned take up a trait slot. Alternativly they could be a trait which ignors the limit being a 'fourth trait' and just simply added on.
QuoteI wish everytime the gay trait get mentioned the thread becomes a monstrously long political correctness debate.
But i digress simply put I believe it the 'gay trait' should be recorded in the menu with pawns diets and other stats rather then the traits system. As they like op mentioned take up a trait slot. Alternativly they could be a trait which ignors the limit being a 'fourth trait' and just simply added on.
This guy has the best idea, just put it in the information screen of a pawn, that way you could define a pawn as liking men, liking woman, or both, seperate from the pawn's actual gender.
My first post btw
Concrete Suggestion
-There is no predefined sexuality for pawns.
-Roll a dice before a pawn decides to flirt with another random pawn, if they are of same gender then there is a 10%+ chance for success role. Else 100% chance.
-If roll is successful then the dice for successful vs unsuccessful flirt is rolled.
Pro: - There is already a system in place for pawns making moves on other pawns
- Easy to code?
- Less meaningless visual clutter in the trait tree, and power gamers will be happy.
- More gay relationships since the chance before for two gays of same gender being together is very low
- Sexuality is fluid, its not set in stone
- No need to include lines of codes and names for all kinds of sexualities, with risk of forgetting one. Since fluid system.
- fun and "shocking", more stories to read
Con: - Sexuality is not predifined for life? Which is more of a pro.
Not a bad first post, Gladeflower.
Mostly I opened the post window to address the claim that we're dealing with people from all eras of humanity, because it's massively false. I mean, I get what you meant to say: we've got primitives, transhumanism and every spectrum in between, but it's all one era; Post-Earth diaspora.
Humanity developed on Earth well past our current era, and developed cryptosleep and semi-reliable interstellar travel. It's conceivable that we managed to stomp out homophobia along the way.
It's also possible that we didn't, or the far-flung seeds of humanity devolved to less enlightened views.
But honestly, that's nether here, not there. We're not talking about futuristic attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. We're talking about how they exist within the playable portion of the game, and how that portrayal impacts purple people playing that game in the here and now.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on July 19, 2016, 06:00:54 PMBut honestly, that's nether here, not there. We're not talking about futuristic attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. We're talking about how they exist within the playable portion of the game, and how that portrayal impacts purple playing that game in the here and now.
Very nicely put. Thank you!
Oh gosh, this one made me laugh, great job ;D
However, if you're really serious about this, then you're dumber than my dead doggy.
The way you put this, game is mostly about sexual interactions. Well, it's not.
Quote from: TOWC on July 20, 2016, 10:16:03 AM
Oh gosh, this one made me laugh, great job ;D
However, if you're really serious about this, then you're dumber than my dead doggy.
The way you put this, game is mostly about sexual interactions. Well, it's not.
Chill out TOWC...
I am in favor of removing the sexuality from the traits list and put it on the social tab as a standard value.
As always when this discussion shows up.
And as always I am shocked that this discussion is still such a big thing and even influences the elections in first world countries.
Also when you bring up ye olden times in this discussion please specify which time you mean.
The Victorian Age where there was no sexuality at all ?
The Time before the French revolution where a certain Marquis made clear that everything goes if you have the money.
The middleages when poor Jesus and his Father where used to oppress the masses ?
The time when Ghenghis Khan spread his DNA everywhere ?
The Romans ? ( see france , also slaves )
Greece ? whats the one thing those guys are famous for other than math and democracy ? ( also slavers )
Sadly I don't know enough about the eastern culteres to put them into the comparison but I am sure they had their ups and downs too. Like that sad down the middle east has these days.
<sarcasm> At least all the pawns are white and like weapons </sarcasm>
The pawns aren't all white!
...though now that you mention it, the lighter skin tones do tend to predominate. Plus, I almost always have at least one pacifist in my colony. They're usually my medics, which works out, because I rarely need to worry about my medics getting wounded in battle.
Pawns are definitely not all white, and given how far in the future rimworld is and the strange way humanity is spreading it's possible that almost no one seen in game actively has any traces of old earth cultural races to begin with.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on July 19, 2016, 06:00:54 PM
Not a bad first post, Gladeflower.
Mostly I opened the post window to address the claim that we're dealing with people from all eras of humanity, because it's massively false. I mean, I get what you meant to say: we've got primitives, transhumanism and every spectrum in between, but it's all one era; Post-Earth diaspora.
Humanity developed on Earth well past our current era, and developed cryptosleep and semi-reliable interstellar travel. It's conceivable that we managed to stomp out homophobia along the way.
It's also possible that we didn't, or the far-flung seeds of humanity devolved to less enlightened views.
But honestly, that's nether here, not there. We're not talking about futuristic attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. We're talking about how they exist within the playable portion of the game, and how that portrayal impacts purple people playing that game in the here and now.
First part is true. However, with those cultures that devolved (advanced, and perhaps devolved again), do you think something as simple as the need to procreate was left out? Only two technology levels, from what I can tell, seem capable of maintaining their population in the face of overwhelming numbers of sexually deviant individuals.
Imagine if everyone practice some form of deviancy in a culture. You'd have to hope that the homosexual male considered the transgender female who believes she is a man would procreate with each other. This relies on the female-male being interested in males still, not females, and the homosexual man being attracted to a female that has the appearance and "soul" of a man, but still has female parts.
Or as another example: a man who is okay with bestiality, procreating with a woman who believes she has the soul of a cat http://goo.gl/5YHVbR . This too assumes that the woman-cat is interested in human males, and not male cats.
Primitive tribes of hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves with large populations of deviant characters as they are, in general, of smaller numbers. The gene pool requires additional contribution to prevent defects.
I suppose in less enlightened cultures, social pressure could still force the marriage of homosexuals with a heterosexual, or even a homosexual of another gender. . . In situations like that, we'd still get the contribution. This would actually be an interesting mechanic in the event of children being implemented, forcing procreation/marriage under the threat of expulsion from the community. Mothers and father's could pressure children into productive relationships for the benefit of the communities' population.
Religion could be another form of social pressure, if such religions exist, which would make sense for certain technology levels. Since those doctrines were created for a reason within historical human society.
I'm convinced now, that removing sexuality from traits may very well be the best thing. Instead just making it another, separate statistic. However, I also believe that the numbers reflect whatever is required (based on technology level) for the continuance of humans through procreation. The only issue I see, when it comes to higher tech levels increasing the amount of deviants, is that the technology actually makes up for the lack of standard procreation. What this means is that deviant couples could still be fertilized artificially and deviancy loses it's usefulness as a form of population control.
All interesting mechanics to consider for the game, though.
Quote from: Kashipoi on July 20, 2016, 03:01:26 PM
Pawns are definitely not all white, and given how far in the future rimworld is and the strange way humanity is spreading it's possible that almost no one seen in game actively has any traces of old earth cultural races to begin with.
My thoughts exactly, a good point.
Quote from: Vagabond on July 20, 2016, 05:20:33 PMFirst part is true. However, with those cultures that devolved (advanced, and perhaps devolved again), do you think something as simple as the need to procreate was left out? Only two technology levels, from what I can tell, seem capable of maintaining their population in the face of overwhelming numbers of sexually deviant individuals.
"Sexually deviant individuals"?
"Overwhelming numbers"?
Quote from: Vagabond on July 20, 2016, 05:20:33 PMPrimitive tribes of hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves with large populations of deviant characters as they are, in general, of smaller numbers. The gene pool requires additional contribution to prevent defects.
Quote from: Vagabond on July 20, 2016, 05:20:33 PMI'm convinced now, that removing sexuality from traits may very well be the best thing. Instead just making it another, separate statistic. However, I also believe that the numbers reflect whatever is required (based on technology level) for the continuance of humans through procreation. The only issue I see, when it comes to higher tech levels increasing the amount of deviants, is that the technology actually makes up for the lack of standard procreation. What this means is that deviant couples could still be fertilized artificially and deviancy loses it's usefulness as a form of population control.
You're arguing from a false premise, i.e. that a society would fail if a non-trivial fraction did not reproduce every generation. While that would certainly be true if NOBODY reproduced, historically the hard caps on population size and growth haven't come from how many people are having heterosexual sex or how often. It's also worth noting raising children takes a
lot of time and effort, and the role of kin selection in our species is significant — e.g. even if you never have children, but help raise your niece and nephew, you're still contributing to the survival of your own genes. (Interestingly, this may be a contributor to why humans survive so long past breeding age when most animals don't — if grandma and grandpa help take care of all their grandchildren, even though they can't have any more children of their own, they're still contributing to the success of their specific bloodlines and also the tribe overall, most of whom are also likely to be relatives.)
Also, would you mind not calling gay, bi, and trans people "deviants"? Thanks.
Fucking Bravo, PocketNerd
I just want to comment real quick that the idea of people caring about sexuality in a year past 3000 is ridiculous. People will have fucked things so much stranger than an ass or a pussy by then.
EDIT: From a game design perspective, make it not count towards the limit on traits and I think you're fine.
Quote from: PocketNerd on July 20, 2016, 07:01:47 PM
Quote from: Vagabond on July 20, 2016, 05:20:33 PMFirst part is true. However, with those cultures that devolved (advanced, and perhaps devolved again), do you think something as simple as the need to procreate was left out? Only two technology levels, from what I can tell, seem capable of maintaining their population in the face of overwhelming numbers of sexually deviant individuals.
"Sexually deviant individuals"?
"Overwhelming numbers"?
Quote from: Vagabond on July 20, 2016, 05:20:33 PMPrimitive tribes of hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves with large populations of deviant characters as they are, in general, of smaller numbers. The gene pool requires additional contribution to prevent defects.
Quote from: Vagabond on July 20, 2016, 05:20:33 PMI'm convinced now, that removing sexuality from traits may very well be the best thing. Instead just making it another, separate statistic. However, I also believe that the numbers reflect whatever is required (based on technology level) for the continuance of humans through procreation. The only issue I see, when it comes to higher tech levels increasing the amount of deviants, is that the technology actually makes up for the lack of standard procreation. What this means is that deviant couples could still be fertilized artificially and deviancy loses it's usefulness as a form of population control.
You're arguing from a false premise, i.e. that a society would fail if a non-trivial fraction did not reproduce every generation. While that would certainly be true if NOBODY reproduced, historically the hard caps on population size and growth haven't come from how many people are having heterosexual sex or how often. It's also worth noting raising children takes a lot of time and effort, and the role of kin selection in our species is significant — e.g. even if you never have children, but help raise your niece and nephew, you're still contributing to the survival of your own genes. (Interestingly, this may be a contributor to why humans survive so long past breeding age when most animals don't — if grandma and grandpa help take care of all their grandchildren, even though they can't have any more children of their own, they're still contributing to the success of their specific bloodlines and also the tribe overall, most of whom are also likely to be relatives.)
Also, would you mind not calling gay, bi, and trans people "deviants"? Thanks.
Sexually deviant is, by definition, a proper way to refer to such individuals, I don't understand your dislike of the term. Sexually, refering to sexual habits, and deviant or deviating from the norm. I refuse to pander to those whom become offended by such trivial things. I'll continue to use the terminology I deem appropriate, it isn't as if I am using explicit language or derogatory terms.
When I said overwhelming numbers, I was referring to the fact that glitterworld and urbworld cultures are capable of artificial insemination, vat growing and/or cloning. Through this, every member of their society could theoretically be sexually deviant with no effect on the gene pool or the continuation of the species.
At the same time, indworlders, midworlders, caveworlders, ect, couldn't cope with having large populations of deviant individuals.
My post was in response to another's, in context, you wouldn't so easily be able to refute my stance as being based upon false premise. What I gathered from the posts before mine, the other posters were suggesting that regardless of the technology level of the culture in it's current state, since it is so far into the future and post human diaspora into space, that sexual deviancy would be normal and not even on anyone's mind. I disagreed with that, and suggested that perhaps urb/glitterworld societies might have continued in that tradition, but those that devolved or evolved only to devolve culturally, would have had their views devolve naturally as well.
"While that would certainly be true if NOBODY reproduced, historically the hard caps on population size and growth haven't come from how many people are having heterosexual sex or how often."I would like to see your evidence for this claim, because personally, I can't fathom a historical example where population isn't governed by heterosexual sex. Historically, it was the only way to have children. So the amount of people coupling, and how often they were able to (successfully), directly impacts the population. If you are just referring to region stability, surplus, and health, then you might as well conjure yourself a red herring, because that is a given. Regardless of such factors, it would still be the responsibility of males and females to copulate naturally. To recover from periods of rampant famine or disease (in which child mortality is high), males and females would need to copulate and reproduce is greater numbers to return a gain on population. Regional Stability is a vast category that can mean anything from natural disaster to war. Surplus and the curbing of famine or disease would allow the warrior caste to be replenished to maintain a fighting force.
The final part of your post is interesting, and accurate, however I don't see the relevance. Were you suggesting that deviant relatives would serve a useful role as caretakers? If so, then the same can be done by non-deviant relatives. It is common knowledge that among almost, if not all cultures, communal child rearing was practiced in some form. Even by the community as a whole, when communal child rearing began to fade, you still had familial child rearing. Eventually is was, for the most part replaced by the nuclear family. As I said though, non-deviant relatives are just as capable of filling this role as deviant relatives. Would deviant relatives or community members be ideally suited for this? Sure, however deviant folk are just as capable of having highly prized and useful skills and could still better serve utilizing them rather than caring for children.
That is neither here nor there, as we were (i thought) speaking about the ratios of deviants to non-deviants, and further break down the ratios of one form of sexual deviancy to another. This way we can formulate, and agree upon the numbers and make a unified suggestion to Tynan. This way he knows what we want.
Ok, you don't want to be limited to 2 extra traits simply because you prefer gay pawns.
I don't want to be limited to 2 extra traits simply because I prefer cannibalistic pawns. Or I prefer night owl pawns. Or Too Smart pawns.
My point is, traits are a way to distinguish how pawns are different from the "most common" variant of each trait. If sexuality is separated, how is that different from any other trait? If one gets special treatment, why not the rest? The "3 trait" limit is just arbitrary to keep pawn profiles from becoming too unwieldy. Many don't even have 3 traits, and very few have 3 traits that you WANT.
So, in conclusion, don't discriminate against me just because I'm a cannibal!
Quote from: Selvek on July 21, 2016, 03:01:23 AM
Ok, you don't want to be limited to 2 extra traits simply because you prefer gay pawns.
I don't want to be limited to 2 extra traits simply because I prefer cannibalistic pawns. Or I prefer night owl pawns. Or Too Smart pawns.
My point is, traits are a way to distinguish how pawns are different from the "most common" variant of each trait. If sexuality is separated, how is that different from any other trait? If one gets special treatment, why not the rest? The "3 trait" limit is just arbitrary to keep pawn profiles from becoming too unwieldy. Many don't even have 3 traits, and very few have 3 traits that you WANT.
So, in conclusion, don't discriminate against me just because I'm a cannibal!
Personally I'd prefer if the trait cap was removed and each trait had a % of happening.
HEY VAGABOND
Can you stop calling things deviant for literally no reason? If you're trying to play the "well it's not normal" card I'd like you to look at history and how plenty of people handle it before saying it's past the norm.
"Sexual deviance, and what is defined as sexually deviant, is culturally and historically specific. This concept refers to behaviors that involve individuals seeking erotic gratification through means that are considered odd, different, or unacceptable to either most or influential persons in one's community."
There is no deviancy at this point. The Romans were notorious for bending each other over from time to time and loving up some butt, historically lesbians have been supported through multiple religions as well as the general understanding that men have always been pervs and love to watch meaning that stigma normally goes out the window. We're here talking about same sex interactions, which in this day and age are pretty commonplace/norm; now you want to argue on the forums about why you're watching a colonist make love to the colony dog, or why he's jackin' it in the corner dressed like a hotdog then we'll talk but you're slinging words at this point and it seems rather dumb to just let you do it without making sure you understand what you're actually saying.
First
How about this Thread gets stickied or linked in the Permanent Suggestion Thread, so the Topic does not get blown out of proportion as Fog of War did, when the discussion broke out anew every few weeks/updates.
On Topic.
I would like to have children in the game. When people pair up thats what happens, and children and pregnant women are always good for stories.
The science about the impact of sexual orientation on population is also true. It is also true that a population of at least 200-300 individuals is needed to ensure growth without inbreeding.
Neither of the given truths have an impact on the size or timeframe the game portraits.
At the moment population growth is governed by the brainwashing skills of a few individuals in the colony.
And random joiners.
The only effect sexual orientation has for now is a pretty steep mood bonus if either one gets paired up or shut down.
Also it is, again scientific and social truths, a individual matter in which the individual has no choice.
The individual may be in denial or social pressure about their sexual orientation but in the end this are the stories that
do not end well.
To put it bluntly. Either one is allergic to peanuts or not.
So please lets stop to outscience each other,
acknowledge that the
argument discussion is about personal preference and oppinion and
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU
ARGUE PARTICIPATE FROM THIS LEVEL AND THE TYPE OF SOCIETY THE PAWNS LIVE
IN IS OF YOUR OWN MAKING.
Lets bring the Topic back down to ingame terms.
FACTS
Pawns are individuals and as yourself have personal preferences.
Pawns can have three traits.
Some of us (players) feel that those traits should not be used to set a sexual preference because it may block other
gameplay effects.
Some of us are of the oppinion that sexual preference has no place in Rimworld.
Some of us have oppinions that ar somewhere in between or completely different.
Finally here is mine.
<personal oppinion>
I am a heterosexual man.
I don't give a damn about the sexual orientation of other people as long as they are happy, because everybode deserves that.
Still it feels somewhat strange to me to see men kissing, but the feeling is waning.
If someone missed the <xml>-sarcasm from my last post, I don't care about skincolor either.
As ingame solutions go, I support the Threads subject. Separate the sexuality from the trait system or at least make it so
that every pawn has a personal orientation and oppinion ( so two traits ) and when its implemented make sure every possible
combination is possible.
gay - dislikes men , hetero - dislikes women, bisexual - dislikes gay etc.
Necrophilia and Beastiality should not be in the game because this could really become a public shitstorm that Tynan does not deserve.
----EDIT----
forgot something, even if it may as well be a new topic :
I would like that Traits could change over time and that Pawns can develop new Traits triggered by what happens to them in the game.
</personal oppinion>
P.S. Why not set up a vote ?
P.P.S. Pleeeeasssy Sticky.
Quote from: Ramsis on July 21, 2016, 09:05:39 AM
HEY VAGABOND
Can you stop calling things deviant for literally no reason? If you're trying to play the "well it's not normal" card I'd like you to look at history and how plenty of people handle it before saying it's past the norm.
"Sexual deviance, and what is defined as sexually deviant, is culturally and historically specific. This concept refers to behaviors that involve individuals seeking erotic gratification through means that are considered odd, different, or unacceptable to either most or influential persons in one's community."
There is no deviancy at this point. The Romans were notorious for bending each other over from time to time and loving up some butt, historically lesbians have been supported through multiple religions as well as the general understanding that men have always been pervs and love to watch meaning that stigma normally goes out the window. We're here talking about same sex interactions, which in this day and age are pretty commonplace/norm; now you want to argue on the forums about why you're watching a colonist make love to the colony dog, or why he's jackin' it in the corner dressed like a hotdog then we'll talk but you're slinging words at this point and it seems rather dumb to just let you do it without making sure you understand what you're actually saying.
It is deviant, because, biologically speaking, we evolved to reproduce sexually between a male and female. Deviance isn't a bad thing, other primates display deviant sexual behaviors. If for some reason, a person has deviant sexual habits, it isn't a cause for alarm.
Your quote, I don't understand how this champions the lashing you are attempting to deal me (unjustly). How does that not apply to my stance? Is a man fornicating with another man odd? Check, but accepted. Is it different then the majority of our species? Check, but again, accepted. Is it unaccepted? There are at least as many, but probably a great deal more people who are strictly against it than there are people who practice such behaviors. Then there are a great deal many people who find it unacceptable to themselves, but don't care if others do it. Again, there are at least as many of them as there are people who are sexually deviant, if not more. So, tell me, how is that quote not in support of my position?
As for the Romans. . . Or other such examples of sexual deviancy. . . While I imagine we could brainstorm a list of people who we could apply labels such as gay or lesbian to, are you so sure that in these cultures or time periods, these people even considered themselves as such? That they were simply hedonistic and enjoying a romp in a moment of ecstasy is more likely. A priestess of some pagan religion might perform deviant sexual acts with another woman, but do either of these women consider themselves lesbians or bi-sexual? Or are they simply women, doing their duty to their god? Would a primate consider itself bisexual, simply because he decided to have sexual intercourse with a primate of the same sex - or gay/lesbian at that? Or is it simply doing it because it is there, but at the end of the day, it understand it's biological and troop obligation?
In the end, they are all acting in a deviant manner, one that their physiology doesn't promote - though it may support such things, as creative use of non-promoting orifices or appendages may be used creatively for sexual stimulation.
Finally, you have me pegged poorly, given we have cannibalism and a select group of deviant sexual forms, I wouldn't be opposed in the least to beastiality or colonists pleasuring themselves. I'm not against sexual deviancy in the least, I accept other peoples practices, even if I do not engage in them myself. Just as I accept other's opinions or viewpoints, even if I do not agree with them.
My only desire is for the game to be as realistic as possible in it's simulation of humanity, combat, water, electricity, construction, time, ect.
The difference between Gay and Cannibal or Night Owl is that by making it a trait, you specifically call it out as different; Unless Tynan himself is considering homosexuality to be a deviation from the norm (which, no matter what anyone states to the contrary, is and always will be considered bad) and is deliberately making that statement, this is NOT a good way to implement it.
More, it completely ignores other sexualities by making sexuality completely binary, and grossly weighted in favor of heterosexuality (one apocryphal example of a non-Gay colonist briefly entering a same-sex relationship notwithstanding).
Again, in-fiction it makes sense no matter how you want to spin it; It's a wide-open world with a billion possible societies that our colonists are coming from, and dozens of real-world historical examples to justify any stance you want to take. (For an interesting one to rebut all of the arguments about tribal cultures, look up the Native American concept of Two Spirits)
What really matters is the person at the keyboard. Gaming has historically been a refuge for the straight white male, but that's changing, albeit slowly and painfully. Unless Tynan is invested in clinging to that straight white male demographic, which I sincerely hope he's not, then gender and sexuality need to be broken out to represent a more diverse universe, and to explicitly tell the non-male, the non-white and the non-straight that they are just as welcome as anyone else to tell horrifying and uplifting stories of life on the Rim. The best part is that there's no down-side for the straight white male, unless they're invested in keeping their hobby closed off; If you're not interested in non-binary, non-straight colonists and the stories they could live, it'd be trivial to mod them out of your game; Considerably less so to ADD that content to a game that doesn't support it.
Can we please try and keep this ontopic and move past the discussions that are offtopic, if you wanna discuss that subject further take it to offtopic. Thanks.
What's off-topic? Everything I'm seeing is related to the topic of sexuality in the game and related universe.
Is it the discussion of whether certain sexualities are considered deviant?
yes that, its not adding any real value to the subject of this thread and is in danger of spiralling into another discussion entirely, im not against discussing this stuff, just in the appropriate place.
Well that was a clusterfuck of posts. Wish I joined in earlier.
Anyway, I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not to not make social traits like "Gay" and "Dislikes Women" not add to the trait cap. On one hand, they're still traits that define your character. But on the other, they're pretty useless and lower your chances of getting a good roll like Industrious.
Actually, i'd say just keep it as it is. Traits are there to define your characters, and it's your issue if you want certain traits for gameplay rather than story.
I Think "gay" should remain a trait because heterosexuality is the standard, and being gay is a deviation from this standard, therefore it should be a trait. I think it stays true to a realistic simulation of a human society this way.
Quote from: ReviireActually, i'd say just keep it as it is. Traits are there to define your characters, and it's your issue if you want certain traits for gameplay rather than story.
Sure, okay, fine. Then let's go ahead and add Heterosexuality as a trait, and Bisexuality and Asexuality too.
You're forced to have one of these traits, in addition to the other traits your character can randomly roll.
Then, just to make it a little easier to read, we'll move this trait upward on the display, to right below the part where it tells your sex and age.
Or, yanno, since all traits are the same, let's go ahead and make your Sex/Gender a Trait, as well as Age. Might want to increase it from 3 to maybe 5-6 traits, though, since Traits are simply things that define your character, and we're going to quickly run out of slots this way...
Quote from: Shakawheterosexuality is the standard, and being gay is a deviation from this standard
I'll say it again.
For. You.
I do think its funny how people say gays are unlikely to have relationships, and this must be "wrong" : in a small, isolated population this is very likely. Take 10 males, 10 females off the street, put them into a campsite with no outside communication. It is VERY unlikely you will have gay relationships forming equal to straight, because gay people are likely to be a minority ANYWAYS. So if you have 1 gay dude, and every other dude is straight, and finds the idea of gay sex or relationships absolutely disgusting, guess what? Gay guy isn't going to get any. Its not discriminatory, or unrealistic, its reality. Just like if I, as a straight guy, hung out in a gay bar expecting to hook up with a straight girl : Its unlikely to happen, given than most girls there are inclined to be lesbian, or NOT seeking men.
Also, straight is normal statistically speaking. So gay being a trait is completely fine, as it IS a quirk.
I do wonder if the drama incurred by adding the gay trait will ever die, there's been LGBT drama ever since it was added, requesting bisexuality, bestiality, transgenderism, ect, ect.
Oh and just my 2 cents on "people cannot choose". Mindsets CAN be shifted, using positive and negative associations. Being gay, or trans is a mental thing, not a physical thing. If positive / negative associations are formed within the mind, making gay sex seem less ideal, and straight sex better, the urges themselves will change, because people don't want to do what they dislike, generally speaking. I didn't always enjoy the idea of say, being dominant to any extent in my relationships in the past, with my insecurity, but over time my negative associations dissipated, and positive associations formed, thus my sexuality is different than it was before. The idea that THOUGHTS, and thought patterns NEVER change in life is asinine. I used to be very attracted to Asians, but after dating one, they don't hold the same allure. This positive / negative association is commonly the cause of people feeling these ways, in addition to pretty much everything we feel. Layers, and layers of positive / negative reinforcement, and mental associations.
If every day you got beaten up with a pink baseball bat every day, you would likely start to feel uncomfortable around that bat, because you associate pain, with the bat (and possibly pink). If people associate pleasure with an experience (molestation, ect) then they might associate pleasure with that scenario, leading them to, by association, crave it. (And the inverse for negative experiences with the opposite sex)
As for traits blocking industrious, I don't think this is a bad thing. We shouldn't always roll the good traits, and some are just meant to be silly, and useless to make us appreciate the other stuff better. If careful shooters were every other pawn, that trait wouldn't be as cool.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on July 21, 2016, 07:17:44 PM
The difference between Gay and Cannibal or Night Owl is that by making it a trait, you specifically call it out as different; Unless Tynan himself is considering homosexuality to be a deviation from the norm (which, no matter what anyone states to the contrary, is and always will be considered bad) and is deliberately making that statement, this is NOT a good way to implement it.
Hmmn...
norm
nôrm/
noun
noun: norm; noun: the norm
1.
something that is usual, typical, or standard.
Sooooo.... Since gays ARE a minority.... gays ARE outside the norm.
more importantly, according to your theory, industrious, careful shooter, sanguine, iron willed are all BAD traits, cause they are outside the norm? Or just gay? Are FACTS bad? Is this your point? Because you know, putting facts in jail, or arresting facts, or killing facts is a bit difficult buddy.
Gays ARE outside the norm, its a fact, they are a drastically lower population than straights by TREMENDOUS margine thus are outside the "norm" of the global population. Something outside the norm isn't inherently bad. Iron willed people are outside the norm, I dont hate them. High intelligent people are outside the norm. I dont hate them. Women I'm compatible with are outside the norm, and I CERTAINLY don't hate them. Get over your senseless emotions, start looking at facts, and dont reject ideas just because they are uncomfortable. Rejecting facts makes you delusional. You don't want to be delusional.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on July 21, 2016, 09:37:32 PM
I'll say it again. For. You.
For him, me, and 90% of the population...as stated above. Gays are not usual, not common, not the majority, ect. They are not the norm.
Bad/No science is used as an authority to conclude value on people in this thread, tho sneakily, and used to make comments on how society should look, else they wont work this and that.
The arm chair science and that gayness can be beaten out of you is also off topic.
Its not how science work and not even how it can be used. I see this all the time as a biology teacher.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on July 18, 2016, 10:14:24 PM
*snip*
I am definitely also in favor of other sexualities represented; Bisexuality, Asexuality, Even allowances for polyamorous relationships.
I'm... not at all sure I'd speak in favor of bestiality or pedophilia, no matter the other atrocities that are common Rimworld; That's beyond where I'd draw the line. Homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. are recognized as healthy expressions of human sexuality (even if not universally so) whereas those are not.
Also, BDSM may be a thing, but it's not a sexuality. I'm not even sure how exactly it would be represented in the game, considering sex is limited to some hearts periodically floating up from the bed.
1) i like the idea of polyamorous relationship.
2) we said bestiality and
necrophilia. lel. but yea, i specifically said those things because i know people who'd read it would get a *trigger intensifies* reaction. hahaha..
3) back then there were torture cages, so instead of having sexytimes in bed, an S&M couple would do sexytimes in the torture cage instead.
Quote from: Selvek on July 21, 2016, 03:01:23 AM
Ok, you don't want to be limited to 2 extra traits simply because you prefer gay pawns.
+
Quote from: Gentz on July 21, 2016, 03:37:08 AM
Personally I'd prefer if the trait cap was removed and each trait had a % of happening.
^yep. as i said before, the best solution would be to just :
1) remove the trait cap limit
2) categorize traits
3) make some traits permanent, and some traits dynamic.
problem solved. people could run around trying to rationalize the problem, same as we did ages ago in previous alphas, but we'd just end up into something similar situation.
next time it might not be about sexual preference, it might be some other trait like cannibalism or whatever. dynamic traits is just a more thorough solution than just to cherrypick between different traits and making exemptions.
heck the only reason i could think about why dynamic traits isn't introduced yet is coz kickstarter backers have bought custom characters and the devs might be cautious about introducing new gameplay elements that could drastically affect their purchases.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on July 21, 2016, 09:37:32 PM
Quote from: ReviireActually, i'd say just keep it as it is. Traits are there to define your characters, and it's your issue if you want certain traits for gameplay rather than story.
Sure, okay, fine. Then let's go ahead and add Heterosexuality as a trait, and Bisexuality and Asexuality too.
You're forced to have one of these traits, in addition to the other traits your character can randomly roll.
Then, just to make it a little easier to read, we'll move this trait upward on the display, to right below the part where it tells your sex and age.
Or, yanno, since all traits are the same, let's go ahead and make your Sex/Gender a Trait, as well as Age. Might want to increase it from 3 to maybe 5-6 traits, though, since Traits are simply things that define your character, and we're going to quickly run out of slots this way...
This is unneeded. Traits are for things that stand out in the game, and have an impact. There's no need to have a trait for things that are expected/the default. Traits are needed for things that are not common though, i.e literally every trait. As for age and sex, that's already in it's own spot. Why change it, that's needless work. There's a system in place already, why do you want the dev(s?) to put in extra effort for something that changes absolutely nothing?
Quote from: Shakawheterosexuality is the standard, and being gay is a deviation from this standard
I'll say it again. For. You.
No. It's deviation because it deviates from the norm. It doesn't matter who or what you are, this is a fact. Last I checked, around 4% of people in America are LGBT. There is no way to argue that 4% is the norm, and 96% is not.
Read the purple.
To the dude above, removing the trait cap would probably lead to some pretty silly stuff. Pawns with every trait under the sun, for one. Although dynamic traits are a neat idea. Definitely worth discussing, at least.
Despite all the disagreements, I think bisexuality NEEDS to be a trait too, simply because currently EVERYONE is bisexual EXCEPT gays, which is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY given the way lovers can spawn. Essentially, take literally any character, no matter the background, and theres a chance they can have a gay lover, either by encounter, or by the formulation of the first 3 colonists.
This is saying 2 things : First, there are no people who are "straight as an arrow" which is absurd. Many people in life never try things with the same sex, much less OPENLY. Even with religious convictions, family, moral beliefs, NOTHING would prevent them from going gay.
Second, its saying that all gay people CANNOT be straight temporarily, which is just as absurd as the first point. So straight people, straight charecters can be made gay, yet gay people cannot be made to be put into a straight relationship? Is this trying to say gay is how things are supposed to be ? Because well, we would die out if so.
I think because of this, bisexuality needs to be added, perhaps with male / female leans, just so this stuff of being with both is possible, without necessarily forcing gay relationships on possible characters. Even JUST having bisexuality trait would clear up a LOT of ambiguity, and stuff left open to interpretation, which is NOT equal on the scales of gay / straight. So either force gay people to occasionally be straight, or add bisexuality. Preferably adding bisexuality.
incorrect, if a pawn ingame does not have the gay trait they cannot be in a gay relationship, there is 0 chance of this happening:
if (generated.gender == other.gender && (!other.story.traits.HasTrait(TraitDefOf.Gay) || !request.AllowGay))
{
return 0f;
}
So, if the 2 people in the above equation are the same gender and the 2nd person doesnt have the gay trait there is 0 chance of the relationship forming.
if traits were dynamic :
-straight have a chance of going gay and vice versa (just like irl) i don't really see a problem with that.
-people that used to be cannibals can become vegetarians and vice versa. i don't really see a problem with that either.
-etc..
gist is : people that used to be X can become Y and vice versa, depending on both choice and circumstance.
i think the only thing that really changes from person to person is the predisposition to different types of traits. ie : some people have a higher probability of going gay compared to other people, or some people are more likely to go vegetarian compared to other people..
traits should be dynamic and predispositions would control the probability of each trait triggering to become active or inactive.
I think 'deviation' is not being used correctly in this context or just not understood the same way by everyone. Some seem to think it means 'not typical/normal' while others seem to think it means 'wrong'.
Hetero is the overwhelming majority but all the other options are fairly consistent around the world. It is normal that x% of the population is Hetero while y% is is gay and z% is bi (and whatever other possibilities there may be). So one could argue that having y% of the population as gay is within the normal ratio and thus not 'deviate' from the norm.
Deviation would occur in the non-standard occurrences. Like sexual preferences originating from some form of trauma. Becoming homosexual because you have been in prison for 50years would be a deviation. This is because it alters the natural ratio of hetero:gay:bi that happens on its own.
Within the context of the game, I think hetero being the assumed standard is fine and that any exception should be a trait. However, characters can have 4 traits easy so why not simply add an extra slot for a non-sexual trait whenever the gay trait is assigned. That way people with the trait arnt punished by being less diverse because of it.
@Skully: Woah, I stand corrected! Sorry, and thank you for correcting me skully. See, I only list this because this thread. https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=18618.msg203721#msg203721
granted this was a while ago, but seeing as tys reaction, its not surprising I would think it was STILL this way. I really wonder when exactly this changed.....
I really appreciate you correcting me, cheers mate!
@Key, I sort of agree, except people would NEVER agree on "what" makes a straight person go gay, or viceversa. Theres many elements to psychology, as mentioned on my rant on positive and negative associations (which we learn EVERY...single...day)
I would perhaps make every trait BUT gay effected by being dynamic, simply because I don't think anyone wants to open THAT can of worms. I'm shocked tynan added gays to begin with, and hope hes not regretting it with the flood of LGBT requests, and complaints that gays are foreveralone. (seriously, if gays are 1 in 10 men, or so (random estimate, but its far under half) then yes, 1 gay man with 9 straight men isn't going to find a lover. This said, I have long suggested phobias, bad traits, ect, could be worked on with psychologists, acquired by trauma, and good traits can be gained by tense situations which make them grow as people. THAT would be insanely cool to see, a builder getting an industrious perk when under pressure of the colony dying, a shooter getting careful shot when he barely saves a person with a rifle round, a pacifist losing their inability to fight when picked on enough.... I cannot express how INSANELY cool this would be, BUT, I'm off topic, sorry. Oh and, I highly doubt a cannibal would go vegitarian, there are....some mental pits one doesn't really get out of...not without serious help.
Just as some people who have been abused enough never develop normal lives, a person who has been instilled with an idea long enough rarely gets out of it.
@jimmy : you are only partially right. I agree that sexual preferences can occur from trauma, but you are kind of confused. When we talk about deviation in sexuallity, from a global populace perspective, gays DO deviate from the mass majority AKA straght people. So in the context from being a minority, and deviating from the majority, or otherwise being "non standard". This said, this is actually a big argument I've made, that MOST gay people have some sort of traumatic, or warping occurrence which does shape them like that. I'm very glad to see you are aware that trauma can do that, most do not understand this is even a possibility.
Im always happy to dig in the code to find the actual answers to people questions about the game so just ask. I find theres a lot of things where one person believes something works a certain way, mentions it somewhere and then it becomes gospel. I love dispelling myths.
Quote from: skullywag on July 22, 2016, 09:05:50 AM
Im always happy to dig in the code to find the actual answers to people questions about the game so just ask. I find theres a lot of things where one person believes something works a certain way, mentions it somewhere and then it becomes gospel. I love dispelling myths.
And I like being proven wrong :) Good to see. And yes, especially with deep games (like rimworld) and continuous updates, things like this can get lost. Do you have any idea when this changed, however? I'm genuinely curious now... Sorry to bother you with so much digging.
Just checked A13 final build and it was like it in there as well and as that version added relationships id say its always been like this. Keep in mind im pretty sure Ison wrote most of this so Tynan may not be 100% on what it actually does (the minor details).
Humn, in this case, I'm really confused...Since its the final build, it might of been changed last minute, but I don't know. it WAS NOT always this way, read the thread I referenced, where a bug was listed of "2 non gay girls flirting", and tynan responded with "not a bug".
So either, no offense, you are misinterpreting the code, or the code was changed on the last build of A13. I'm inclined to believe the 2nd one, simply because I don't want to doubt you, but it surely was NOT always this way, the bug report proves this. Well, this leaves more questions than answers, I guess.
----
Actually, looking around.... A13 was released on april 6th, the bug report for 2 straight girls flirting was on april 10th. There was no revision updates for A13, that I am aware of, and since the code didn't change as you say, I'm inclined to believe you showing that code MIGHT not actually mean this is impossible.
Sorry to doubt you, but something isn't adding up.
Quote from: mumblemumble on July 22, 2016, 09:03:56 AM
@jimmy : you are only partially right. I agree that sexual preferences can occur from trauma, but you are kind of confused. When we talk about deviation in sexuallity, from a global populace perspective, gays DO deviate from the mass majority AKA straght people. So in the context from being a minority, and deviating from the majority, or otherwise being "non standard". This said, this is actually a big argument I've made, that MOST gay people have some sort of traumatic, or warping occurrence which does shape them like that. I'm very glad to see you are aware that trauma can do that, most do not understand this is even a possibility.
I disagree. If say 90% of people in a group are white, does that mean the 10% that are people of colour are deviations? no, they are just a minority. a deviation would be a black person turning white like Michael Jackson. Things that happen in a somewhat steady ratio are normal, deviation is leaving that ratio.
While I said trauma 'can' cause deviation, I did not mean that it is the cause for MOST people being gay. Typically their trauma comes after the fact and does not form the cause of their sexuality.
But to get back to the issue of the game, keeping things simple is the best course of action and I have already made my suggestion.
Well, I suppose deviation wouldn't really apply to them because, genetically, nothing is wrong supposedly with their genetics, they just have different genetics. But as you hinted at, it can deviate...and frankly, I don't believe people simply "become" gay. I didn't simply "become" a by and large teetotaler, I went through experiences, had feelings formed by them, which then formed opinions, actions, and who I am today. I think the this applies to sexuality too.
But, yes, in a by and large white community, they would be a deviation from the average population, same for vice versa. Same for if I entered Detroit, I would be a deviation the average population. Its not the race itself, which is the deviation, but the race in the CONTEXT, meaning, a minority.
And yes, I know YOU aren't saying that most gays have that as a cause (obviously not, not all gays have been in jail) but I mean these sort of psychological changes are what cause most of them. But the main point is, since they are a deviation from the statistical average, and a deviation from the normal sexual drive (in the eyes of many, and with much evidence supporting) Then them having a trait is perfectly fitting, since it not normal (read : normal meaning within the norm, meaning average, meaning majority) and for everyone else, we assume they are straight generally speaking.
also skull, get back to me if you figure it out. thanks.
Quote from: keylocke on July 22, 2016, 08:36:33 AM
if traits were dynamic :
-straight have a chance of going gay and vice versa (just like irl) i don't really see a problem with that.
-people that used to be cannibals can become vegetarians and vice versa. i don't really see a problem with that either.
-etc..
gist is : people that used to be X can become Y and vice versa, depending on both choice and circumstance.
i think the only thing that really changes from person to person is the predisposition to different types of traits. ie : some people have a higher probability of going gay compared to other people, or some people are more likely to go vegetarian compared to other people..
traits should be dynamic and predispositions would control the probability of each trait triggering to become active or inactive.
YES YES AND YES.
The trait descriptions read, most of the time, like defining moments of live for a pawn.
So yeah, I will propagate dynamical traits every chance I get now.
Because no one can argue against the fact that being stranded on a rimworld and doing what has to be done is not a defining time in the life of the pawn.
Jon the farmer met the beautiful Glitterworld Model Jaques and finally came out of the closet.
The tiny and peaceful vegan elaine had to eat human meat to survive .. and liked it.
( well vegetarian and vegan .. that would be traits to screw the colony sideways :D )
FREE THE TRAITS !
Quote from: mumblemumble on July 22, 2016, 09:36:01 AM
Humn, in this case, I'm really confused...Since its the final build, it might of been changed last minute, but I don't know. it WAS NOT always this way, read the thread I referenced, where a bug was listed of "2 non gay girls flirting", and tynan responded with "not a bug".
So either, no offense, you are misinterpreting the code, or the code was changed on the last build of A13. I'm inclined to believe the 2nd one, simply because I don't want to doubt you, but it surely was NOT always this way, the bug report proves this. Well, this leaves more questions than answers, I guess.
----
Actually, looking around.... A13 was released on april 6th, the bug report for 2 straight girls flirting was on april 10th. There was no revision updates for A13, that I am aware of, and since the code didn't change as you say, I'm inclined to believe you showing that code MIGHT not actually mean this is impossible.
Sorry to doubt you, but something isn't adding up.
Totally could be me, but ive run it past the other modders on slack and theyve agreed with me.....??? I have never seen it in all the testing and all the games I played, that doesnt mean anything however as this game is heavily random. Ill do some more digging, this is fun.
Edit: there is a check directly after the one i posted:
if (generated.gender != other.gender && other.story.traits.HasTrait(TraitDefOf.Gay))
{
return 0f;
}
This states that 2 different genders where 1 is gay cannot have a relationship. So thats definite, just need to work out what that allowgay request thing is.
Quote from: mumblemumble on July 22, 2016, 10:00:49 AM
Well, I suppose deviation wouldn't really apply to them because, genetically, nothing is wrong supposedly with their genetics, they just have different genetics. But as you hinted at, it can deviate...and frankly, I don't believe people simply "become" gay. I didn't simply "become" a by and large teetotaler, I went through experiences, had feelings formed by them, which then formed opinions, actions, and who I am today. I think the this applies to sexuality too.
But, yes, in a by and large white community, they would be a deviation from the average population, same for vice versa. Same for if I entered Detroit, I would be a deviation the average population. Its not the race itself, which is the deviation, but the race in the CONTEXT, meaning, a minority.
And yes, I know YOU aren't saying that most gays have that as a cause (obviously not, not all gays have been in jail) but I mean these sort of psychological changes are what cause most of them. But the main point is, since they are a deviation from the statistical average, and a deviation from the normal sexual drive (in the eyes of many, and with much evidence supporting) Then them having a trait is perfectly fitting, since it not normal (read : normal meaning within the norm, meaning average, meaning majority) and for everyone else, we assume they are straight generally speaking.
This is the nature vs nurture debate. I consider sexuality to be mostly defined by nature with some influence based on nurture. You believe the opposite from what I gather.
I dont consider minority to equal deviation. You do, but the issue people have is that devient often is considered to equal wrong. So in this context people are interpreting what you say as that being a minority is wrong. Might not be what you mean, I get what you are trying to say, but thats what people might be reading. For me, deviation for skin colour would be if there were normally NO members of a race at all in a group and then suddenly there was one, like an albino. We simply have different interpretations of the same words.
OK, just didnt want you to think thats what I meant. I disagree that a majority of gay people are only gay because something 'happened' to them. But within the contest of the game that you are getting at, I actually dont have an issue with it being listed as a trait, simply that it is a low impact trait that shouldnt bump out something more useful. Of course when children get thrown into the mix, depending on how its done, it might have a bigger impact.
OK gonna start a new post for this, So actually I think im right.....i have re edited this after thinking about it again.
// RimWorld.InteractionWorker_RomanceAttempt
public float SuccessChance(Pawn initiator, Pawn recipient)
{
float num = 0.6f;
num *= recipient.relations.AttractionTo(initiator);
num *= Mathf.InverseLerp(5f, 100f, (float)recipient.relations.OpinionOf(initiator));
float num2 = 1f;
Pawn pawn = null;
if (recipient.relations.GetFirstDirectRelationPawn(PawnRelationDefOf.Lover, (Pawn x) => !x.Dead) != null)
{
pawn = recipient.relations.GetFirstDirectRelationPawn(PawnRelationDefOf.Lover, null);
num2 = 0.6f;
}
else if (recipient.relations.GetFirstDirectRelationPawn(PawnRelationDefOf.Fiance, (Pawn x) => !x.Dead) != null)
{
pawn = recipient.relations.GetFirstDirectRelationPawn(PawnRelationDefOf.Fiance, null);
num2 = 0.1f;
}
else if (recipient.GetSpouse() != null && !recipient.GetSpouse().Dead)
{
pawn = recipient.GetSpouse();
num2 = 0.3f;
}
if (pawn != null)
{
num2 *= Mathf.InverseLerp(100f, 0f, (float)recipient.relations.OpinionOf(pawn));
num2 *= Mathf.Clamp01(1f - recipient.relations.AttractionTo(pawn));
}
num *= num2;
return Mathf.Clamp01(num);
}
the call near the top:
num *= recipient.relations.AttractionTo(initiator);
calls attractionTo:
// RimWorld.Pawn_RelationsTracker
public float AttractionTo(Pawn otherPawn)
{
if (this.pawn.def != otherPawn.def || this.pawn == otherPawn)
{
return 0f;
}
float num = 1f;
float num2 = 1f;
float ageBiologicalYearsFloat = this.pawn.ageTracker.AgeBiologicalYearsFloat;
float ageBiologicalYearsFloat2 = otherPawn.ageTracker.AgeBiologicalYearsFloat;
if (this.pawn.gender == Gender.Male)
{
if (this.pawn.RaceProps.Humanlike && this.pawn.story.traits.HasTrait(TraitDefOf.Gay))
{
if (otherPawn.gender == Gender.Female)
{
return 0f;
}
}
else if (otherPawn.gender == Gender.Male)
{
return 0f;
}
num2 = GenMath.FlatHill(16f, 20f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat, ageBiologicalYearsFloat + 15f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat2);
}
else if (this.pawn.gender == Gender.Female)
{
if (this.pawn.RaceProps.Humanlike && this.pawn.story.traits.HasTrait(TraitDefOf.Gay))
{
if (otherPawn.gender == Gender.Male)
{
return 0f;
}
}
else if (otherPawn.gender == Gender.Female)
{
num = 0.15f;
}
if (ageBiologicalYearsFloat2 < ageBiologicalYearsFloat - 10f)
{
return 0f;
}
if (ageBiologicalYearsFloat2 < ageBiologicalYearsFloat - 3f)
{
num2 = Mathf.InverseLerp(ageBiologicalYearsFloat - 10f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat - 3f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat2) * 0.2f;
}
else
{
num2 = GenMath.FlatHill(0.2f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat - 3f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat, ageBiologicalYearsFloat + 10f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat + 40f, 0.1f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat2);
}
}
float num3 = 1f;
num3 *= Mathf.Lerp(0.2f, 1f, otherPawn.health.capacities.GetEfficiency(PawnCapacityDefOf.Talking));
num3 *= Mathf.Lerp(0.2f, 1f, otherPawn.health.capacities.GetEfficiency(PawnCapacityDefOf.Manipulation));
num3 *= Mathf.Lerp(0.2f, 1f, otherPawn.health.capacities.GetEfficiency(PawnCapacityDefOf.Moving));
float num4 = 1f;
foreach (PawnRelationDef current in this.pawn.GetRelations(otherPawn))
{
num4 *= current.attractionFactor;
}
int num5 = 0;
if (otherPawn.RaceProps.Humanlike)
{
num5 = otherPawn.story.traits.DegreeOfTrait(TraitDefOf.Beauty);
}
float num6 = 1f;
if (num5 < 0)
{
num6 = 0.3f;
}
else if (num5 > 0)
{
num6 = 2.3f;
}
float num7 = Mathf.InverseLerp(15f, 18f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat);
float num8 = Mathf.InverseLerp(15f, 18f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat2);
return num * num2 * num3 * num4 * num7 * num8 * num6;
}
So given a gay male and female:
if (this.pawn.RaceProps.Humanlike && this.pawn.story.traits.HasTrait(TraitDefOf.Gay))
{
if (otherPawn.gender == Gender.Female)
{
return 0f;
}
}
We get a zero percent attraction. So back to the first method:
float num = 0.6f;
num *= recipient.relations.AttractionTo(initiator);
We still have 0 at this point and the next bit:
num *= Mathf.InverseLerp(5f, 100f, (float)recipient.relations.OpinionOf(initiator));
Would be 0 * whatever the outcome of the opinion is, so....0
As the main method ends with a:
num *= num2;
Would that mean that there is 0 percent chance its gonna happen.
Actually, I fully agree with its mostly nature, and partially nurture. Nature demands men get with women, women get with men, have kids, but nurture can DAMAGE this natural state into other ones. If you say otherwise, I'd like a theory on where it comes from, being gay then, and why it would be gay sometimes, and why nature would make it at the rate it does, and for what purpose.
To clarify, being a minority is ONLY a deviation from the AVERAGE. Saying something is a deviation from the average is essentially saying its uncommon, and it is. Many things uncommon, quality shoes, good friends, ect, but none of those are bad. And I don't hesitate to say that anyone who believes "deviation" by itself is bad, even when told otherwise is an idiot, and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. But, I do understand your theory, and perhaps calling them uncommon would be better for statistical purposes, but I would argue psychologically they are still a deviation of the first definition.
@skully : humn odd... well, I have not SEEN straight people flirting recently, so it MIGHT be gone, but I'm still confused. Wish ijon, or Tynan could give 2 cents on this, if it was removed or still there. if it WAS removed, well, good, 2 straight girls getting married was just silly. But if its still there, well, I think it should be replaced with the bi trait, or that it should be completely disabled as we think it is now. But, I doubt they would poke their heads in this thread. Never the less, I appreciate the looking around. I'm just curious if it was changed, when, because the bug report is proof it used to be possible.
EDIT : Woah, way too much code.... wait a minute, you are running the code for a gay female, and a male right? This is because gay refuses attraction to opposite sex. What about 2 non gay females? Is that any different? Sorry if I'm asking redundant questions, my only experience with code is very basic zdoom scripting, so this is a bit confusing to read. :-[ I mostly would like to know if this is in a change log anywhere
check the full if statement:
if (this.pawn.gender == Gender.Male)
{
if (this.pawn.RaceProps.Humanlike && this.pawn.story.traits.HasTrait(TraitDefOf.Gay))
{
if (otherPawn.gender == Gender.Female)
{
return 0f;
}
}
else if (otherPawn.gender == Gender.Male)
{
return 0f;
}
num2 = GenMath.FlatHill(16f, 20f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat, ageBiologicalYearsFloat + 15f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat2);
}
If the instigating male is gay and is trying to chat up a female, 0.
If the instigating male is no gay and is chatting up a male, 0.
Same for females but inverse.
Then as stated, that 0 flows through the code all the way to the end using multiplication so 0* whatever is 0. so yeah I think its impossible based on the romance check.
Humn, possibly, but does 0 REALLY mean theres no possibility?
IIRC deformations can cause negative attraction, yet can still get romance if lucky, yes? So isn't a 0 still pheasable?
Normally I would say yes but this method is success chance on a romance attempt, 0 is 0. Is there any other way bar romancing or on generation that a relationship can occur.
Humn alright, I will take your word for it. Sorry for this massive thread derail over this, but its good to have it cleared up. This said, if if find this happening, I will totally report it as a bug.
thanks for baring with me skully!
There is the explained proof :
When the return value is not the chance but the actual answer to the question if a relationsship is formed then yes zero means no relationship will be formed.
My guess the ugly trait will work as a negative modifier for the chance, likely a 0.something
ah .. there it is ..
[u] int num5 = 0;
if (otherPawn.RaceProps.Humanlike)
{
[u] num5 = otherPawn.story.traits.DegreeOfTrait(TraitDefOf.Beauty);[/u]
}
float num6 = 1f;
[u] if (num5 < 0)
{
num6 = 0.3f;
}[/u]
[u] else if (num5 > 0)
{
num6 = 2.3f;
}[/u]
float num7 = Mathf.InverseLerp(15f, 18f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat);
float num8 = Mathf.InverseLerp(15f, 18f, ageBiologicalYearsFloat2);
[u] return num * num2 * num3 * num4 * num7 * num8 * num6;[/u]
}[/u]
num2 is gayness
num6 is beauty
So yeah. If num2 is returned zero in the coupling scenario it will set this whole calculation to zero and there will be no relationship. The chance is decreased 100%
Being ugly decreases the chance by 70% while being beautiful increases the chance by 230%
Quote from: mumblemumble on July 22, 2016, 10:53:37 AM
Actually, I fully agree with its mostly nature, and partially nurture. Nature demands men get with women, women get with men, have kids, but nurture can DAMAGE this natural state into other ones. If you say otherwise, I'd like a theory on where it comes from, being gay then, and why it would be gay sometimes, and why nature would make it at the rate it does, and for what purpose.
To clarify, being a minority is ONLY a deviation from the AVERAGE. Saying something is a deviation from the average is essentially saying its uncommon, and it is. Many things uncommon, quality shoes, good friends, ect, but none of those are bad. And I don't hesitate to say that anyone who believes "deviation" by itself is bad, even when told otherwise is an idiot, and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. But, I do understand your theory, and perhaps calling them uncommon would be better for statistical purposes, but I would argue psychologically they are still a deviation of the first definition.
Sometimes nature changes things, with various results. I consider the natural occurrence of gays to be within the norm and the DAMAGE to be the deviation. Nobody knows why it happens in nature, for any of the animals it happens too. We are still trying to figure it out.
I get what you are saying and somewhat agree, just that the problem is that not everyone else does. Uncommon would be a better term that causes less misunderstanding. Deviant is, in my experience listening to others, equated with something bad.
For example some people refer to criminals as deviants. If most people obey the law then its proper usage but when you use the same word to describe the gay population then the mental logic is (criminal=deviant, deviant=gay, then gay must = criminal) Its absolutely wrong to think that way but it happens. So even if gays should be considered technically deviant it still shouldnt be used because so many people wont see it that way.
I think we both know what the other is trying to say (even if we dont agree), so lets just let this go because we have made our game related comments already.
Hold on, I just realized, these number refer to romance attempt ODDS OF SUCCESS, not likely hood of romance attempt.
Why would 2 straight girls try to flirt?... The romance attempt should never occur?
Well I guess this is checked before the romance attemp occurs.
The functions on display are, like you said only about attraction and success chance of romance.
To avoid confusion and cpu-time ..
nope ..
Thought about it.
If there is no check before the flirt-attempt if the starter of the relationship is gay
there would be no other way for the pawn to find out if both are gay if not every relationship tryout combination was fair game.
Unlucky for me I don't have the tools and base knowledge of the code to check it out for myself. At least not in a timely manner.
But at least now we have a fair understanding on how traits are used in the relationship system and can guesstimate on the effort that would be needed to seperate sexuality from the trait system.
So again my new pet child : Make Traits Dynamic.
In that case, if its in there as flirting, as nothing else....this is.. ...just fucking weird. Imagine 2 straight men doing this.
"Hey man, you got a real nice ass on you, want to get some alone time?"
"Er....no thanks"
"Alright, no homo. I'm not gay or anything".
:-\???
This confuses the living shit out of me, if this can still happen, yet never happens with a relationship...