outdated thread is outdated
And just how much help is a baby to the colony? or even a toddler? You want it for extra colonists, but I ask just how long do your colonies last? 1 year? 3 years? 5 years?
Not like the baby is suddenly going to be an adult and useful.
The code is all in the base game to make it happen, except for what to do with them before they reach the minimum age the back stories allow.
Quote from: TLHeart on October 17, 2015, 01:48:21 AM
The code is all in the base game to make it happen, except for what to do with them before they reach the minimum age the back stories allow.
There's code for them as babies as other animals are, just because if they went through doing other animals makes sense they'd do humans, but the mating system is not made for mating humans, and would need work.
its not that your colonists cant be made to have children, its that the world just aint ready for them :P
"children" currently are fully grown fully kitted adults....trust me, its been done. Weneed the core game to support it properly, messing with pawn code is very difficult still.
All that aside, could you imagine the backlash Tynan would get after the first nursery to get slaughtered by raiders?
People that request human breeding want a QUICK increase in colonists, not babies and children that are a drain on the colony.
Kinda like all the people that wanted to have huge armies of animals doing their fighting for them... expectations... disappointments... then the backlash at Tynan.
The "quick increase" method is to buy slaves. I breeding is the exact opposite of "quick."
A bred colonist would be about 7-10 years before being useful and that would only be for hauling. It would take 10+ years before they could actually be useful (crafting, research, etc).
With a (hack-job version of) the Ultimate Overhaul Modpack, one of my female colonists got pregnant.
All of my colonists were in crypto but her and her canonical mate, a lean cybernetic genius crafter that had an unfortunate habit of going mad and losing control over his own limbs. Must have been wild in bed. So, I was much surprised to find out that colonists can get pregnant, that the uterus is apparently "the liver", and that spontaneous abortions can happen due to spousal abuse. :(
Anyway, life lesson is that the game confirms your ships, and then slaps them down hard. Don't get pregnant on a rimworld.
Quote from: TLHeart on October 19, 2015, 01:06:37 AM
People that request human breeding want a QUICK increase in colonists, not babies and children that are a drain on the colony.
Kinda like all the people that wanted to have huge armies of animals doing their fighting for them... expectations... disappointments... then the backlash at Tynan.
This happened?
I am disappointed in you community.
But I would actually like a slow I mean 1:1 time for babies aging to toddlers to children to teenagers (able to do basic jobs) to adults.
It would take years but it would be nicer that you can have stories with drama,
when you're starving for food who will you kill the adults who can work or the baby who makes the adults unable to sleep? what will you do?
In my opinion it would really be a benefit and you shouldn't be able to control when they so
it so it will give you a baby in the worst possible time. And make you push what your morals allow you to do.
(and have the parents freak out when someone kills their baby and then they kill everyone or at least them selves if they can't hold them selves together..)
I would like it, it would add more depth to the game.
While I'ld like a game like that, I don't think that game is RimWorld.
As others mentioned, the timescale isn't right for it - it would take too long for most folk
The game is more of an arcade survival simulator, a 'lifelike' child-rearing aspect would clash with that imo
Finally, doing it properly means a lot of new game additions; first and foremost a relationship web - children and parents need to be aware of eachother and develop feelings for eachother. Second is all the practical stuff for children. Do they just wander around all day? Do parents carry them around? What about school/training? All of these would be good additions, but they'ld need to happen before children can be done properly. I don't think this is modding territory anymore.
i play rimworld since alpha 8 i think. and if collonists can get pregnant... that would be very awesome.
i never start to build a ship to go "home" ... i play just to make a very big world with tons of collonists... i realy love this game ... but not like that what i made for
i think the little pawns must go to shool and so on ... and maybe with 8-9 years they can do easy work ... like hauling or cleaning ... and at an age of maybe 13-15 years ... they can start with full work (i mean ... in some countries the children work at 6 years and younger [Afrika maybe])
so it would be veeeeeery cool if there where kids ... and ofc its an aditional joy "object" ^^ because... who love not to play with kids :D
(sorry about my english... isnt so good :O)
Babies are easy: Immobile creatures in constant need of "rescue" and a warden like attention. Toddlers that need a zone to be held in and fed. Juveniles could feed themselves and could be assigned follow another pawn around and learn skills from them.
All babies would be assigned a background associated with the Rim Kid, Crash Child, Outlander Child (something along that vein) which would give them average background perks +1 to every Skill and random passions. When they grow to adulthood they get an adulthood background based on their highest skill they've acquired shadowing another colonist with some variations for flavor (pawns raised might become empath if there's an empath in the colony. Passing on traits, etc.) Would be a lot of work :P
This also brings up another opportunity for colonist production: Vat-growing people. So if anyone is interested, a mod to let you vat-grow colonists would be pretty interesting...
Quote from: Hague on October 21, 2015, 06:35:48 PM
Babies are easy: Immobile creatures in constant need of "rescue" and a warden like attention. Toddlers that need a zone to be held in and fed. Juveniles could feed themselves and could be assigned follow another pawn around and learn skills from them.
All babies would be assigned a background associated with the Rim Kid, Crash Child, Outlander Child (something along that vein) which would give them average background perks +1 to every Skill and random passions. When they grow to adulthood they get an adulthood background based on their highest skill they've acquired shadowing another colonist with some variations for flavor (pawns raised might become empath if there's an empath in the colony. Passing on traits, etc.) Would be a lot of work :P
This also brings up another opportunity for colonist production: Vat-growing people. So if anyone is interested, a mod to let you vat-grow colonists would be pretty interesting...
Easy to think but a butterscotch bitch to code he he.
Well if aging was a thing like in the [Sims] then breeding would work just fine. Instead of aging being 1:1 it could be for every one year they age 3-4 years... or even 6-7. Let our colonists die of actual natural causes for heavens sake, we've worked together for 6+ years and hes struggling to move now lol.
And no breeding wouldn't be a way for people just to increase their colony quickly (there is that debug menu that can give you 30 colonists in 2 secs) it would be another challenge, cuz now I have to take care of this screaming baby when I'm supposed to be building wall for the next phase of our base.
Quote from: DGInFamous on November 15, 2015, 07:32:24 AM
Well if aging was a thing like in the [Sims] then breeding would work just fine. Instead of aging being 1:1 it could be for every one year they age 3-4 years... or even 6-7. Let our colonists die of actual natural causes for heavens sake, we've worked together for 6+ years and hes struggling to move now lol.
And no breeding wouldn't be a way for people just to increase their colony quickly (there is that debug menu that can give you 30 colonists in 2 secs) it would be another challenge, cuz now I have to take care of this screaming baby when I'm supposed to be building wall for the next phase of our base.
Well, the developer menu is kind of straight up cheating, so it really isn't a valid argument... And, most colonies last around 1-3 years.
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 15, 2015, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: DGInFamous on November 15, 2015, 07:32:24 AM
Well if aging was a thing like in the [Sims] then breeding would work just fine. Instead of aging being 1:1 it could be for every one year they age 3-4 years... or even 6-7. Let our colonists die of actual natural causes for heavens sake, we've worked together for 6+ years and hes struggling to move now lol.
And no breeding wouldn't be a way for people just to increase their colony quickly (there is that debug menu that can give you 30 colonists in 2 secs) it would be another challenge, cuz now I have to take care of this screaming baby when I'm supposed to be building wall for the next phase of our base.
Well, the developer menu is kind of straight up cheating, so it really isn't a valid argument... And, most colonies last around 1-3 years.
*cough* 12 years *cough cough*
Quote from: Tatte on November 15, 2015, 04:41:09 PM
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 15, 2015, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: DGInFamous on November 15, 2015, 07:32:24 AM
Well if aging was a thing like in the [Sims] then breeding would work just fine. Instead of aging being 1:1 it could be for every one year they age 3-4 years... or even 6-7. Let our colonists die of actual natural causes for heavens sake, we've worked together for 6+ years and hes struggling to move now lol.
And no breeding wouldn't be a way for people just to increase their colony quickly (there is that debug menu that can give you 30 colonists in 2 secs) it would be another challenge, cuz now I have to take care of this screaming baby when I'm supposed to be building wall for the next phase of our base.
Well, the developer menu is kind of straight up cheating, so it really isn't a valid argument... And, most colonies last around 1-3 years.
*cough* 12 years *cough cough*
Yeah my colony is on it's 7th year. Most people don't land then work on their ship. Hell I don't even work on my ship til I get bored with the late game. So I don't know where your "most colonies" argument comes from.
And still looking for your point on the topic subject. Can you point it out?
Quote from: DGInFamous on November 15, 2015, 08:59:51 PM
Quote from: Tatte on November 15, 2015, 04:41:09 PM
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 15, 2015, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: DGInFamous on November 15, 2015, 07:32:24 AM
Well if aging was a thing like in the [Sims] then breeding would work just fine. Instead of aging being 1:1 it could be for every one year they age 3-4 years... or even 6-7. Let our colonists die of actual natural causes for heavens sake, we've worked together for 6+ years and hes struggling to move now lol.
And no breeding wouldn't be a way for people just to increase their colony quickly (there is that debug menu that can give you 30 colonists in 2 secs) it would be another challenge, cuz now I have to take care of this screaming baby when I'm supposed to be building wall for the next phase of our base.
Well, the developer menu is kind of straight up cheating, so it really isn't a valid argument... And, most colonies last around 1-3 years.
*cough* 12 years *cough cough*
Yeah my colony is on it's 7th year. Most people don't land then work on their ship. Hell I don't even work on my ship til I get bored with the late game. So I don't know where your "most colonies" argument comes from.
And still looking for your point on the topic subject. Can you point it out?
Fine then, INTENDED colony playtime is 1-3 years really. My point is that's not enough time for a baby, and even with them aging super-fast which would be annoying, it's not enough time for a baby.
wow, a 7 year colony and a 12 year colony. yep those babies are finally big enough to do some work now.
Quote from: TLHeart on November 16, 2015, 12:00:40 AM
wow, a 7 year colony and a 12 year colony. yep those babies are finally big enough to do some work now.
Wow TL you apparently just read the last post and nothing else. Plus why do the children HAVE to grow up to be put to work, why can't there just be children in the colony?
And everyone's opinion and input matters, that's why games are the way they are, cuz people have input. Stop shooting down suggestions just cuz YOU don't agree or YOU don't see how it could work. I support the idea of relationships and reproducing. Actually makes more sense than "convincing" the enemy to join.
Doesn't make me any more right than you or vice versa.
And TL I suggest you read the OP to prevent you from seeming ignorant to the post. Just a suggestion. Unnecessary and antagonistic. -MK
Quote from: DGInFamous link=topic=16559.msg182375#msg182375
And TL I suggest you read the OP to prevent you from seeming ignorant to the post. Just a suggestion.
The OP is literally 2 sentences, indirectly asking for colonists to reproduce, that's all. Oh, and Tynan has already added relationships, they'll be in the next release.
Quote from: DGInFamous on November 16, 2015, 11:23:18 AM
Quote from: TLHeart on November 16, 2015, 12:00:40 AM
wow, a 7 year colony and a 12 year colony. yep those babies are finally big enough to do some work now.
Wow TL you apparently just read the last post and nothing else. Plus why do the children HAVE to grow up to be put to work, why can't there just be children in the colony?
And everyone's opinion and input matters, that's why games are the way they are, cuz people have input. Stop shooting down suggestions just cuz YOU don't agree or YOU don't see how it could work. I support the idea of relationships and reproducing. Actually makes more sense than "convincing" the enemy to join.
Doesn't make me any more right than you or vice versa.
And TL I suggest you read the OP to prevent you from seeming ignorant to the post. Just a suggestion.
I did read the op... and I will quote it here "So I happened across the Romance mod by Lord Fap, in my search for a mod that makes it easier to get more colonists.. I found it lacked the only thing I'd need from a romance mod, is the extra colonists :o"
So look in the mirror about the ignorance. This right here was antagonistic and unnecessary. -MK
Hello,
For the long version of what I'm going to say, see my post here: https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=8122.msg105183#msg105183.
Summary:
Current gameplay happens much faster than is logical: building, mining, construction, ect. all happen at a very accelerated rate. This is sensible because if it didn't, then the game wouldn't be fun. However, if we alter the time scale to something along the lines of 1 day = a month, or 1 day = 3 months, then we have a much more sensible timescale for all facets of the game. Each day will consist of the 24 hour clock, with each game hour equaling either one real life minute, or thirty real life seconds.
This will allow children to add depth to gameplay, with all the trials and tribulations, but also reward the player with a new colonist in a useful amount of time.
Cheers,
Michael
Quote from: TLHeart on November 16, 2015, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: DGInFamous on November 16, 2015, 11:23:18 AM
Quote from: TLHeart on November 16, 2015, 12:00:40 AM
wow, a 7 year colony and a 12 year colony. yep those babies are finally big enough to do some work now.
Wow TL you apparently just read the last post and nothing else. Plus why do the children HAVE to grow up to be put to work, why can't there just be children in the colony?
And everyone's opinion and input matters, that's why games are the way they are, cuz people have input. Stop shooting down suggestions just cuz YOU don't agree or YOU don't see how it could work. I support the idea of relationships and reproducing. Actually makes more sense than "convincing" the enemy to join.
Doesn't make me any more right than you or vice versa.
And TL I suggest you read the OP to prevent you from seeming ignorant to the post. Just a suggestion.
I did read the op... and I will quote it here "So I happened across the Romance mod by Lord Fap, in my search for a mod that makes it easier to get more colonists.. I found it lacked the only thing I'd need from a romance mod, is the extra colonists :o"
So look in the mirror about the ignorance.
TLTWAT it was a redundant statement, as if your IGNORANT reply had no basis on the topic thread. Let me explain for the twat size brain.
The topic had come up about a higher ratio of aging to time, so children would make sense. So when your dumbass comment of "wow those babies are ready for work" had complete IGNORANCE written on it.
So can you show me this "mirror"?
User was banned for this post for one day: Rule 1.
Well then... That got hostile. Now, @Vagabond suggestions, that seems interesting. Bit complicated I'd say though. Also for time, Tynan is doubling a day's length in the next Rimworld update, or somewhere near then, to help fix those time problems.
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 17, 2015, 11:22:33 AM
Well then... That got hostile. Now, @Vagabond suggestions, that seems interesting. Bit complicated I'd say though. Also for time, Tynan is doubling a day's length in the next Rimworld update, or somewhere near then, to help fix those time problems.
Do you have a link to the changes that are gonna happen in the next update?
I would like to see a colonist die of old age, after having 2 children with his wife whom he crash landed with on the planet years ago.
Leadership would be a cool thing too, doesn't really have to do anything just have the status symbol. Bossman. I do a lot of RP with my colonists, its kinda weird. My 2 main characters room together in a room cuz they're "married" but they have negative Needs cuz they're sharing a room.
Even if it was just a mod that would be cool, hence the reason I started to post here....
Quote from: DGInFamous on November 17, 2015, 11:56:41 AM
Do you have a link to the changes that are gonna happen in the next update?
Don't know where the time update was stated, I know it was confirmed though, and the dev blog states he's already done some relationship work. https://ludeon.com/blog/2015/11/ongoing-progress/
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 17, 2015, 11:22:33 AM
Well then... That got hostile. Now, @Vagabond suggestions, that seems interesting. Bit complicated I'd say though. Also for time, Tynan is doubling a day's length in the next Rimworld update, or somewhere near then, to help fix those time problems.
Zombie2,
I apologize, but I don't understand how doubling a day's length will solve lapses in continuity. Here is the problem I see:
Things happen to fast.
By trying to fix the fact that colonist are able to get too much done in a game day by doubling the length of the day seems illogical to me. This means that colonist will be able to get twice as much done in a game day.
My solution was to make each day represent either a) a month, or b) three months. Why these two ratios?
A month will allow a "longer" game, while three months would be the minimum to ensure we experience each season for a minimum of a game "day", as determined by biome and longitude/latitude.
Personally, I prefer the 1 game day representing a month. The allows for things such as children, while also allowing for reasonable construction/mining/research times. Some would prefer the three months, because it would mean faster work times, faster reproduction and aging, and quicker research.
I posit a game "day" should be 6, 12, or 24 minutes long. I can't help but see positives in them all, so I can't say for certain without play testing with rebalanced "work" times.
Cheers,
Michael
Quote from: Vagabond on November 20, 2015, 11:59:05 PM
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 17, 2015, 11:22:33 AM
Well then... That got hostile. Now, @Vagabond suggestions, that seems interesting. Bit complicated I'd say though. Also for time, Tynan is doubling a day's length in the next Rimworld update, or somewhere near then, to help fix those time problems.
A month will allow a "longer" game, while three months would be the minimum to ensure we experience each season for a minimum of a game "day", as determined by biome and longitude/latitude.
Personally, I prefer the 1 game day representing a month. The allows for things such as children, while also allowing for reasonable construction/mining/research times. Some would prefer the three months, because it would mean faster work times, faster reproduction and aging, and quicker research.
I posit a game "day" should be 6, 12, or 24 minutes long. I can't help but see positives in them all, so I can't say for certain without play testing with rebalanced "work" times.
Cheers,
Michael
I really don't think those ratios work. Making a day 24 minutes long, so every hour is a minute, then making it so there's only 12 days in an entire year? I get what you're trying to do, but doesn't really work out well. And yeah, I misread your original post.
QuoteI really don't think those ratios work. Making a day 24 minutes long, so every hour is a minute, then making it so there's only 12 days in an entire year? I get what you're trying to do, but doesn't really work out well. And yeah, I misread your original post.
Zombie2,
Without trying to sound combative, could you explain your position on why you don't think it would work? It is difficult to hold a dialogue with only a position made, and no argument for it.
I argue three possible rl time to game day length ratios, with a fourth for the sake of completeness:
RL Seconds:In game hour
15:1 = 6 rl minute long day
30:1 = 12 rl minute long day
45:1 = 18 rl minute long day
60:1 = 24 rl minute long day
, and I argue one possible abstract timescale, with a second added for the sake of completeness:
Ig Day:Abstract month(s)
1:1 Twelve game days = one year. Based on the lack of heavy construction equipment, this abstraction meshes well with current (construction, research, mining, growing, and skill increase.) and my own proposed systems for gestation, human growth, and development.
1:3 Four game days = one year. This accelerates gameplay to much, I believe. I only added this because it meshed with human gestation. I do not quite support this rate.
Hypothetically (as I'm not responsible for such decisions, or privy to engine/labor limitations), I believe this would improve immersion, while at the same time opening up the possibilities for many new systems centered around simulation of not only the player colony, but also the colonies of other factions - allowing a realistic timescale for events and escalation of conflict, without sacrificing the pace of the game.
As a reference for such a model I've used scaling systems for The Guild series, and most multi-layer strategy games. The Sims 3 even deploys time abstraction (I believe the default value has a infant advancing to the toddler stage after just a couple of days).
Cheers,
Michael
I just feel time shouldn't be changed, I didn't have an argument besides that. Also, the game uses ticks, 60 ticks is a second, http://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Time. Better to use ticks then in-game hours. My argument now though...
So you're proposing, firstly, a 3600 tick day, 24 minutes. A current day is 8 minutes, so x3 time increase. But then you remove months and basically make it 12 days a year. Yet months are 1h 23m 20s, or 300,000 ticks. 43,000 ticks per year then, yet the current year is 3,600,000, or 16 hours, and your proposal would mean a full rimworld year would be done in about 11 minutes, a bit over a Rimworld day.
You're trying to fix the 'construction time problem' and fitting it into your own systems, but it would really fuck up time in the game. Our current time problems are how long it takes for pawns to do any task, completely speeding up time just really fucks it up. They would take half a day in Rimworld, 4 minutes, to walk an irl 5 minute walk. This is guessing for the walking past, but they walk extremely low as it is now, and we can't make them go super fast. Plus, with the speeding up ability, it could take roughly 4 minutes to finish an entire year in Rimworld. Four minutes. I just don't think this makes it realistic at all, it really just bends the time to your system and doesn't help the current time problems.
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 21, 2015, 11:03:58 AM
I just feel time shouldn't be changed, I didn't have an argument besides that. Also, the game uses ticks, 60 ticks is a second, http://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Time. Better to use ticks then in-game hours. My argument now though...
So you're proposing, firstly, a 3600 tick day, 24 minutes. A current day is 8 minutes, so x3 time increase. But then you remove months and basically make it 12 days a year. Yet months are 1h 23m 20s, or 300,000 ticks. 43,000 ticks per year then, yet the current year is 3,600,000, or 16 hours, and your proposal would mean a full rimworld year would be done in about 11 minutes, a bit over a Rimworld day.
You're trying to fix the 'construction time problem' and fitting it into your own systems, but it would really fuck up time in the game. Our current time problems are how long it takes for pawns to do any task, completely speeding up time just really fucks it up. They would take half a day in Rimworld, 4 minutes, to walk an irl 5 minute walk. This is guessing for the walking past, but they walk extremely low as it is now, and we can't make them go super fast. Plus, with the speeding up ability, it could take roughly 4 minutes to finish an entire year in Rimworld. Four minutes. I just don't think this makes it realistic at all, it really just bends the time to your system and doesn't help the current time problems.
Zombie2,
The current flow of the game feels right. It isn't to fast, it isn't to slow. It keeps the game moving forward. Which is why I proposed altering perception of time, rather than a rebalance of work-ticks. I'm kind of confused as to why you are focusing so much on engine ticks as opposed to timescale, when most users don't "see" ticks. They see the seconds, minutes, and hours going by in game - not how the engine uses ticks to push them. That would just break the fourth wall and ruin immersion.
QuoteI really don't think those ratios work. Making a day 24 minutes long, so every hour is a minute, then making it so there's only 12 days in an entire year? I get what you're trying to do, but doesn't really work out well. And yeah, I misread your original post.
You also seem to be ignoring the three other scales in favor of the twenty four minute one. Perhaps you were just using it as an example, but bashing it, instead of the one more closely matched to the current one is a bit unfair, I think. If you insist on speaking engine, I'll do the conversions for you:
RL Seconds:In game hour
15:1 = 6 rl minute long day; 900 ticks. In game year: 10,800 ticks, or an 1h 12m rl.
30:1 = 12 rl minute long day; 1,800 ticks. In game year: 21,600 ticks, or 2h 24m rl.
45:1 = 18 rl minute long day; 2,700 ticks. In game year: 32,400 ticks, or 3h 36m rl.
60:1 = 24 rl minute long day; 3,600 ticks. In game year: 43,200 ticks, or 4h 48m rl.
Now...You use movement speed as an issue. As square size isn't published, I think it's safe to assume they are between three and five feet. A person wouldn't fit in a 1x1 or 2x2 square comfortably. As map sizes can be between 200-400 tiles, at 3 sq ft / tile we have a figure between 600 to 1200 feet across. At 4 sq ft/tile we have a figure between 800-1600. At 5sq ft/tile we have 1000-2000.
A mile is 5280, 3/4 mile is 3960, 1/2 2640, while 1/4 is 1320. Consider movement speed with these figures.
Then perhaps movement is the -only- aspect that is stretched by my suggestion, however you have to take into consideration that the "work" being conducted is abstractly representing a month. Consider how long it takes to mine, gather, process, and transport materials - then consider how long it takes to construct a building without heavy equipment. By using an abstract timescale, we have a plausible amount of time for this to have happened - as some amount of weeks, rather than days or hours. The same goes for researching, it has to be a record to draft, design, and blueprint the construction of a geothermal generator in two or three days for any scientist- especially when he has no other part in the construction. Those have to be really good instructions.
You've found one good argument against it, travel on our play map, which can be explained with the system as it being the sum of an entire month (for a 24 hour game day).
But if that is all, then consider what is improved, or could be implemented with it:
Construction: Takes weeks/months of abstract time, rather than days.
Mining: that Cheyenne Mountain Complex you're building has taken months, if not a years of work.
Research: No more inventing the wheel in a day.
Overland movement (off map): Can now take a reasonable amount of time, offering possibilities for mechanics geared towards off map missions
Sustainable Npc and player colonies: Population models that regenerate or deplete over time to account for births and deaths. (sorry, but this will force new interesting challenges that don't revolve around "Slaughter 100s of humans every few days")
Space Travel: No more building a vessel capable of traversing space, while at the same time keeping X amount of people alive via suspended animation in as much as some months or a year. This is now a project that takes years. We don't have the manpower (or resources) of NASA to churn one out in a short period of time.
The list goes on.
Work times don't need to change to fit this. They are fine as they are - they just need to be done in a new timescale to make more sense. This would have zero impact on pace or gameplay, except that it will allow deeper simulation and integration of mechanics that would be even more absurd in a game with a timescale that plays each individual day in less than ten minutes.
Take a look at some of the planned features on the most recent dev blog post. Families. Deeper relationships. These things need time to develop. If each day were a day, these things would be so painfully slow to happen (if modeled realistically) that they wouldn't be worth it. Essentially boiling down to colonist A meeting colonist B, two days pass, they are in love. In my timescale these things would have happened over the course of months, while not slowing down gameplay or having features that only occur after hundreds of hours of gameplay with the chance of being wiped away by a stray bullet the next moment.
Cheers,
Michael
But construction does not take weeks or months in real life. 2 people can build a shelter in one day, large enough to sleep in, cook in.
And sleep, with your time scale will make no sense, and neither would eating.
we should probably not use 'this timescale makes no sense' as an argument for any timescale - in the end they're all abstractions for gameplay's sake.
What you should be asking is what is fun to play, and what would allow for interesting mechanics. Personally, I think the idea of longer days (a la the next alpha), but having months last a smaller amount of days (maybe configurable?) might be a good compromise between the two timescales we're talking about.
It'ld give a semi-realistic idea of what can be done in a day, but also allow for enough progression to allow some 'long term' gameplay mechanics (such as breeding colonists, diplomacy, etc) to actually work.
That said, I don't think the game should want to try and do everything. It's a very nice 'day to day' colony survival game, that doesn't necessarily mean tacking on features left and right is a good thing. I'm not at all convinced having babies/toddlers/teens running around is going to add anything to the fun of playing.
Growth Hormones
These guys have advanced tech, right? So why wait 9 months for a baby to pop out when if you really want to, you can have it grow in 3? And Pirates Emporium will happily sell you growth pills so your baby can be a productive teenager (hauling wood and shooting raiders) in only 2 years!
Quote from: Shurp on November 22, 2015, 06:27:03 AM
Growth Hormones
These guys have advanced tech, right? So why wait 9 months for a baby to pop out when if you really want to, you can have it grow in 3? And Pirates Emporium will happily sell you growth pills so your baby can be a productive teenager (hauling wood and shooting raiders) in only 2 years!
Just beware the rare but potentially serious side effects of accelerated-growth pills... ;)
I was in search of a mod to add children and stumbled on this thread. Very disappointing by the close-mindedness of this community, sticking to realism over gameplay. It's absurd.
This guy gets it:
Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on November 22, 2015, 04:03:36 AM
we should probably not use 'this timescale makes no sense' as an argument for any timescale - in the end they're all abstractions for gameplay's sake.
Most of Rimworld is fundamentally based on Dwarf Fortress. So why not children? Dwarf Fortress has children. A year in Dwarf Fortress is around 1 hour. It takes 12 years to be considered an adult.
Now forget years, because that's really unimportant.
Pregnant -> Baby: 45 Minutes
Baby -> Child: 1 Hour (Able to clean and haul)
Child -> Adult: 11 Hours
Rimworld has a different concept of roles and restrictions so it would be interesting to implement that with the aging process. Something like this:
Age 0: No skills avilable
Age 1: Hauling, Cleaning
Age 2: Artistic
Age 3: Animal Training
Age 4: Growing (Child labor? Damn right, you are trying to survive and everyone must chip in)
...
Age 12: Adult (finally unlocks Melee, Ranged)
"But a year takes 16 hours in Rimworld, so shouldn't it take 16*12 hour-" NO!!!This isn't Earth. 1 Earth year does not equal 1 Rimworld year. It is perfectly valid that you grow from baby to adult within one game year. If you were on Neptune you would die of old age
twice before you were 1 Neptune Year old.
--
Ugh, anyway. I think children should be in the game.
this sounds like a neat idea
I can sign up on children that can do manual labour like pets, but not reproduction. Growing them from babies is just an inefficient method and stahp. Colonists don't gotta bloody mate.
Quote from: TLHeart on November 21, 2015, 05:56:27 PM
But construction does not take weeks or months in real life. 2 people can build a shelter in one day, large enough to sleep in, cook in.
And sleep, with your time scale will make no sense, and neither would eating.
O.o; A shelter out of sticks? or Straw? Maybe a small square brick and mortar cube that they could crawl into. Sure, a small lean-too could be done. I accept that. But building a concrete or steel structure. . . No. A warehouse just put up down the street, that if based on scale in game to what it'd roughly be equivalent in rl....Would probably fit our geothermal generator in it. Took about two-three months, maybe longer to build it with a full construction crew and heavy machinery.
So to sum that up: Survival shelter acceptable in one day. Construction of actual buildings -does- take weeks or months using construction -crews- and -heavy machinery-.
Sleeping and eating are the casualty of this and part of the abstraction. The Guild 2 has you playing a family and at the end of each day a year has passed. You don't sit there and go "man... how did a year go by, my people only ate -twice- in a year! They couldn't have survive on that single night of sleep!". The reason for this, is because its an acceptable abstraction to make construction, production, family, and all other facets of the game make more sense. Which is precisely the issue I find with this game. By having this abstraction, it would allow for TONS of new mechanics regarding relationships, diplomacy, logistics, ect.
Cheers,
Michael
Quote from: Vagabond on November 25, 2015, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: TLHeart on November 21, 2015, 05:56:27 PM
But construction does not take weeks or months in real life. 2 people can build a shelter in one day, large enough to sleep in, cook in.
And sleep, with your time scale will make no sense, and neither would eating.
O.o; A shelter out of sticks? or Straw? Maybe a small square brick and mortar cube that they could crawl into. Sure, a small lean-too could be done. I accept that. But building a concrete or steel structure. . . No. A warehouse just put up down the street, that if based on scale in game to what it'd roughly be equivalent in rl....Would probably fit our geothermal generator in it. Took about two-three months, maybe longer to build it with a full construction crew and heavy machinery.
So to sum that up: Survival shelter acceptable in one day. Construction of actual buildings -does- take weeks or months using construction -crews- and -heavy machinery-.
Sleeping and eating are the casualty of this and part of the abstraction. The Guild 2 has you playing a family and at the end of each day a year has passed. You don't sit there and go "man... how did a year go by, my people only ate -twice- in a year! They couldn't have survive on that single night of sleep!". The reason for this, is because its an acceptable abstraction to make construction, production, family, and all other facets of the game make more sense. Which is precisely the issue I find with this game. By having this abstraction, it would allow for TONS of new mechanics regarding relationships, diplomacy, logistics, ect.
Cheers,
Michael
First off, construction without government intervention and safety rules does not take months or weeks.... ever hear of a barn raising? where a barn, a large warehouse is erected in one or two days? Happened all the time, before government safety regulations. And that is without HEAVY equipment also.
Sorry but I totally disagree with you on the time scale... It can use some MINOR adjustments. But nothing like the changes you want. I play and like rimworld because it is different from the games you are talking about. Let rimworld stand apart from other games, and NOT become those other games.
TLHeart,
QuoteFirst off, construction without government intervention and safety rules does not take months or weeks.... ever hear of a barn raising? where a barn, a large warehouse is erected in one or two days? Happened all the time, before government safety regulations. And that is without HEAVY equipment also.
Sorry but I totally disagree with you on the time scale... It can use some MINOR adjustments. But nothing like the changes you want. I play and like rimworld because it is different from the games you are talking about. Let rimworld stand apart from other games, and NOT become those other games.
1) Barn raising was done with wood, joints, biscuits, dowel, nails, and wood angle supports over packed dirt.
2) Barn raising was performed by a LARGE amount of people, essentially the whole community - many different families.
3) This is different on so many levels from construction with steel, concrete, masonry, rebar, foundation, ect.
4) There is a reason for regulation of construction, aside from greed and half baked conspiracy theory. Without it, there is nothing to keep the constructors from building something that will fall on your head. In a place where there is no regulation, the architects and builders must check, double check, and revise as they build. Which takes even more time.
5) Simply throwing barn raising out there as having been an example of small structure construction, that is possible in two days, without considering the enormous amount of forethought and logistics is just... Yeah.
I agree that Rimworld is a great game. Even better in most ways than other games. However, I don't think I've ever come across a game that didn't have at least one thing about it that was just brilliant. Even if the rest of the game was bogus. Rimworld isn't perfect, some are content with the casual simulation and in favor of the arcade-like shoot'em up. I'm not, and by looking at the ways in which other games have made features I enjoyed work, I can suggest modified models of that mechanic in a way I see it working for another. I respect my opposition, but it doesn't deter me from putting forth my ideas of what I think will make the game better for me.
I'm honest and upfront about that. I'm in it for my entertainment. If my vision is aligned with, or inspires the developer of a game to come up with something else, then I couldn't be happier. If it stays the same, then I accept it as it is and continue playing, or set it aside. But I'll never regret the purchase of Rimworld, which ever way it goes - I've gotten my hours out of it.
Cheers,
Michael
If Rimworld had babies and children, they'd probably get treated the same way as babies in Dwarf fortress - mostly expendable. A baby gets captured/killed and the mother goes insane? Retain order with a hammering to the head. Some players would set traps using unwanted children as bait. You'd get players churning out babies for cannibal meals and leather chairs. It would be like the DF's mermaid baby farm all over again. As long as you can keep the pawn's mood positive, they'd be sad their children died but the room and meal is quite lovely.
Ethics and morality quickly go out the window when we become overseers. Even more so when players get bored and think of new ways to "have fun".
Quote from: Masquerine on November 26, 2015, 01:12:03 PM
If Rimworld had babies and children, they'd probably get treated the same way as babies in Dwarf fortress - mostly expendable. A baby gets captured/killed and the mother goes insane? Retain order with a hammering to the head. Some players would set traps using unwanted children as bait. You'd get players churning out babies for cannibal meals and leather chairs. It would be like the DF's mermaid baby farm all over again. As long as you can keep the pawn's mood positive, they'd be sad their children died but the room and meal is quite lovely.
Ethics and morality quickly go out the window when we become overseers. Even more so when players get bored and think of new ways to "have fun".
I... Sorry, momentarily speechless. Such depravity should obviously have serious repercussions to the mental state of colonist and npcs whom aren't deranged cannibalistic psychopaths; Affecting happiness, relationships, and diplomacy.
Different faction types might have different reactions towards children. Some might try to take them to bolster their breeding pool. Some might take them to eat. Some might refrain from attacking. Others might simply try their best not to hit them. Idk.
This is an incredibly strange scenario you've presented. One I would have never thought of. Though it wouldn't surprise me that others have thought of it, or done it. Games, and particularly the internet, bring out strange things in some people.
Yea...Is this a true story?
I'm sorry but are you trolling us Vagabond... It's been mentioned plenty before. Rimworld isn't a game of ethics, it's survival. There's stranger stuff then using your own babies skin to make a comfy armchair.
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 27, 2015, 07:54:30 AM
I'm sorry but are you trolling us Vagabond... It's been mentioned plenty before. Rimworld isn't a game of ethics, it's survival. There's stranger stuff then using your own babies skin to make a comfy armchair.
Trolling?
I'm afraid not. Dwarf fortress was much to primitive looking to appeal to me - I've heard many good things about it in regards to actual mechanics, but never anything like what the other user posted.
Ethics have little to do with what I was talking about. I was speaking on the mental health of people whom might consider using their's, or other's children as bait or materials for a project. Even more so, how it would affect the mental health of the friends and family who've garnered a relationship with the child.
It's a statistical fact that children make people do crazy things. The closer the relationship between the person and the child, the more apt that person is to perform difficult, dangerous and or abhorrent acts for the sake of the child's welfare.
Children bring a feeling of ease and validation to your actions when you have a quiet moment to sit and simply watch them snuffle their blanket or give out a little belly-laugh over some silly and inconsequential thing. This feeling extends to other non-relatives as well. Children mark progress and provide motivation to press on.
Now, I see four possible reasons you stated "There's stranger stuff then using your own babies skin to make a comfy armchair."
1) You are harmlessly trolling.
2) You are a child.
3) You are a childless adult or a young adult raised as an only child.
4) You are a sociopath.
This isn't multiple choice - you don't have a pick one. However, I would also like to note one last thing on the matter: Instinct. Empathy. There are some who truly lack it, but attributing that to a majority?
Cheers,
Michael
It's a video game, so neither of those four. Well actually, I am childless, but I do indeed have siblings. That has nothing to do with it though. Being ready to butcher some babies that are mere xml and C# code doesn't make me a sociopath. You need to rethink life.
Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on November 27, 2015, 03:58:19 PM
It's a video game, so neither of those four. Well actually, I am childless, but I do indeed have siblings. That has nothing to do with it though. Being ready to butcher some babies that are mere xml and C# code doesn't make me a sociopath. You need to rethink life.
Trolling, indeed. How would you categorize such behavior, if not within one of those four I listed? How would we, hypothetically, affect the mood and personality of colonists and NPCs? A colonist who is okay with having a baby skin arm chair, and a baby meat dinner, is a socio/psychopathic cannibal in my mind. Such an individual would, in my opinion, cause negative mood effects such as anger or another form of stress. In addition, I would wager that someone who isn't okay with it, but is "forced" to do so, wouldn't have their personal feelings about it assuaged by nice decorations and a pleasant ambiance. Furthermore, if they were tricked into eating it somehow, and found out later what it was, I wager there would be serious problems.
And this is just for a stranger or friend. A parent or sibling would, I wager, react much worse.
A fun fact. Why are children so very often absent from video games, or made invincible? It is because of how it would be received by mainstream media if clips of people dismembering infants were to appear. Especially if it was so that the mother was able to get a new sofa and a nice stir-fry. People would recoil at the very notion of such things.
I'm being realistic from both a gameplay perspective and a real-life perspective. The latter being life, in case you were unaware. I'm well grounded in reality, life withstanding, you should at least consider the former.
Recap.
Sane pawn no like insane stuff. No matter if survival or condo living.
Things most people don't like:
Sociopaths
psychopaths
cannibalism
incest
necrophilia
infanticide
patricide
bestiality
pedophilia
These are bad things - survival situation or not. How would you react if you were on an island with some guy and hes doing inappropriate things with goats while he thought you weren't looking? Or you cut yourself and he elects to lick up all the blood droplets before he helps you out?
You are in a survival situation so it's okay.... Perfectly logical. Hell, that native woman's child is easier to steal than trying to hunt that boar. Lets just nab that and grill it up. Bet it'll taste just like the pork. Puuuurrrrfectly sane.
Cheers,
Michael
I'm a modder. I'm not gonna feel anything for that baby gorilla I'm grilling up to feed to my starving colonists after I spend half an hour coding it in.
So I was browsing through the xml files, and I came across this in LifeStages.xml:
<LifeStageDef>
<defName>HumanlikeBaby</defName>
<label>baby</label>
...
Human babies are coming to Rimworld at some point.
Quote from: Shurp on November 28, 2015, 11:57:47 AM
So I was browsing through the xml files, and I came across this in LifeStages.xml:
<LifeStageDef>
<defName>HumanlikeBaby</defName>
<label>baby</label>
...
Human babies are coming to Rimworld at some point.
They likely aren't. Just because it has the ability in the code doesn't mean they are coming. There's nothing else anywhere in the code to support colonist pregnancy or the game adding babies. The lowest age you can get is like 16 I think and then there's the 'adult backstory' because there's no coding for kids. It's there because every animal in the game has it, and it would be silly to not add all human lifestages when he's adding them.
I don't think players making chairs out of baby skin would be that much of a problem with the upcoming relationship feature. Players don't have to feel empathy for pixelated babies, they'll just be forced to protect them or risk having various colony members gain serious mood issues.
I think babies and children could work being in the vanilla game. Just make them... somewhat uncommon or rare. To make them less like expendable warg bait. So children and babies would be more like that little fragile thing that you have to protect. But if it's just a mod, well then hey... feel free to make expendable baby baits.
Aside from that, I have no other ideas to contribute. I'm still pretty neutral about this baby thing. Many people seem to want it for instant labour though. Huh.
I don't want babies that do instant labor, but I like the idea of white elephant babies.
I am unsure how to feel about little baby humans walking around my colony, but I am 100% in support of being able to produce our own colonists through relationships developed by previously existing colonists.
I suppose that whether or not Tynan decides to let us have baby humans walking around our colonies is irrelevant to me as long as we no longer have to resort to hoping that an escape pod will land or a raider attack will happen so that we can take prisoners and hopefully recruit them.
Of course many have mentioned the logistics of children in terms of time it would take for them to grow up, yet I would prefer a colonist who grows slowly over time as opposed to having to wait for a random event that may or may not occur.
Quote from: TheWhiz on November 29, 2015, 01:14:41 PM
I am unsure how to feel about little baby humans walking around my colony, but I am 100% in support of being able to produce our own colonists through relationships developed by previously existing colonists.
I suppose that whether or not Tynan decides to let us have baby humans walking around our colonies is irrelevant to me as long as we no longer have to resort to hoping that an escape pod will land or a raider attack will happen so that we can take prisoners and hopefully recruit them.
Of course many have mentioned the logistics of children in terms of time it would take for them to grow up, yet I would prefer a colonist who grows slowly over time as opposed to having to wait for a random event that may or may not occur.
What, you don't think pregnancy is a random event?
Quote from: TLHeart on November 29, 2015, 06:08:31 PM
What, you don't think pregnancy is a random event?
I'm a random event it seems.
its a joke ok
I would just like to note that while there are certain implications to having children - such as a redefining of relationships, several new skills (parenting anyone?) and the (possibly permanent) moodlet most likely gained from losing a parent/child, there are several good things as well - a moodlet from "having some fun", a moodlet of actually having a child (cancelled out during labor by pain, of course), a mood let for watching a child walk for the first time, or speak their first word, etc. - the lis goes on. But we, as a community, would have to agree on a couple of things- such as NO PEDOPHILIA MODS, first and foremost, among other things that we could iron out later, assuming this was added. And we wouldn'thave to edit the time scale either - just allow children to age faster, or increase the general age rate, or anything else we choose. Seriously, we could just say strange gravity effects speed up or slow down time, or make this an event which is much more common while a child is growing into an adult, so that we don't have to wait forever.
In fact, I might figure out how to mod in time-speed events right after this ;)
Quote from: TLHeart on November 29, 2015, 06:08:31 PM
Quote from: TheWhiz on November 29, 2015, 01:14:41 PM
I am unsure how to feel about little baby humans walking around my colony, but I am 100% in support of being able to produce our own colonists through relationships developed by previously existing colonists.
I suppose that whether or not Tynan decides to let us have baby humans walking around our colonies is irrelevant to me as long as we no longer have to resort to hoping that an escape pod will land or a raider attack will happen so that we can take prisoners and hopefully recruit them.
Of course many have mentioned the logistics of children in terms of time it would take for them to grow up, yet I would prefer a colonist who grows slowly over time as opposed to having to wait for a random event that may or may not occur.
What, you don't think pregnancy is a random event?
You bring up a good point, yet it all falls onto how the mechanics would handle the event. Whether it would be completely random or something we can command pawns to do is unknown at the moment.
Are you asking if I feel that pregnancy (in real life) is a random event?
Quote from: Masquerine on November 26, 2015, 01:12:03 PM
If Rimworld had babies and children, they'd probably get treated the same way as babies in Dwarf fortress - mostly expendable. A baby gets captured/killed and the mother goes insane? Retain order with a hammering to the head. Some players would set traps using unwanted children as bait. You'd get players churning out babies for cannibal meals and leather chairs. It would be like the DF's mermaid baby farm all over again. As long as you can keep the pawn's mood positive, they'd be sad their children died but the room and meal is quite lovely.
Ethics and morality quickly go out the window when we become overseers. Even more so when players get bored and think of new ways to "have fun".
And that's bad because...?
Murder is murder, yet most games feature the idea of taking the life of another, in one way or another.
And you don't have a problem with that, or what?
In this game I've ordered my pawns to kill hundreds of thousands of enemies, and in poor times, I even butchered and fed a few to my colonists.
As for children? Most likely won't be in vanilla, but then again it's a mod request (I'm a 100% behind).
Children aren't a quick fix on declining population count. It's like keeping squirrels for pets -pretty pointless aside from a little mood boost maybe.
Children would be pretty much the same. Wastes food, wastes the time of colonists, for some mood boost. At least at first.
Raiders slaughtering children, colonists butchering children, kid-skin sofas;
It's a game. Not only it's not real, it's pretty much up to the developer how it will be -it's not reality, it can be played with.
For one, nobody said children should be slaughtered by raiders. Raiders could simply kidnap them.
Also, nobody said children should be allowed to be butchered. It can be disallowed, so even the psychopath cannibals won't be able to do it.
No kid-skin sofas then, see 2nd point.
Even if Tynan himself were to implement something like this, the "backlash" could be minimized.
As for aging... 15 years (the minimum age in vanilla) to have a finally useful colonist is a lot, I agree.
I think that is the number one reason why there isn't such a mod yet, but I think it could be balanced. But even if not...: There is such a thing as "Phoebe Friendly" game mode, and there is such a thing as "Base builder" difficulty. Having a colony survive 20 years isn't hard by default, just time consuming.
But kids aren't incompetent, they could do stuff like hauling, cleaning, plant-cutting or growing, if not as efficiently.
Child labor? ??? Well damn, I should've said that when my mother asked me to wash the dishes. Missed my opportunity.
Out-of-the-world idea, an underage doing anything productive, right?...
No. It would be their home, it'd be "housework", and it's pretty common all around the world. Anyone who disagrees with that is either a spoiled kid, or is spoiling his/her kid.
If anything, not teaching kids how to do at least basic chores to prepare them for adulthood should be unethical.
Besides, 15 is the number. That's still considered to be underage in many countries, yet such colonists can kill, butcher and eat raiders, without the need of mods; and you all are playing with that kind of game, you sick F***ers...! ;)
But really, just looking at the backstories; this game is pretty dark. Failed test subjects, sex slaves, actual child laborers just to name a few, it sure isn't an utopia, if anything child labor would be a vanilla-friendly feature.
"Ethics and morality", huh? Well, those things went out the window when the idea of Rimworld was born. Go and pester Tynan how heartless he is, I'm sure he'll be delighted. ::)
Even with the restrictions to make the aging of children more realistic, it can be very, very useful in some time. Aside from giving mood boosts, something kids tend to do.
For one, about 70-80% of any of my "late"-game colonies' daily work consists of cleaning and hauling.
A 6 years old can clean and haul -you do the math.
I've 11 colonist I could feed with human meat -I have more than enough positive mood sources to negate the side effects my colonists eating human flesh.
It would save me plenty of work also, as I have over 50 corpses going to waste outside, and I just finished cleaning up the previous group.
But I don't do that.
Why do you think that is?
In my opinion it's pretty pointless whining about the *possible* unethical side of this idea.
Especially when it comes to a video game.
Especially when it comes to a game such as Rimworld.
Especially under a mod-request thread. :o
Just one other suggestion to kick this stone rolling again:
Advanced growth hormones
Why wait 15 years for baby colonist to grow up if you can give him pills to grow up in a year? Sure, you might not want to give that temper-tantrum prone 1 yr old a gun, but you can put him to work hauling and brewing beer.
Speaking of beer, given the amount of beer these colonists are consuming and the absence of prophylactics, accidental babies are nearly guaranteed!
Shurps idea is a good one.
Let 'em grow up naturally, and it'll take them longer to reach maturity... but they might be able to develop some skills during that time. Pump 'em full of drugs, or grow them in a vat, and you end up with quick labor with virtually no skill.
I like the idea of that.
Alternatively with the vats idea, we already know there are vat-grown soldiers; it's an in-game profession for a reason. Why not just fill the kid's brains with what knowledge you want them to have, and make it impossible for them to do anything besides what they were programmed for?
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/MTG-ThreadNecromancer_3198.jpg)
Thanks, I've been looking for that one *saves* :D
Quote from: Zelborg on October 16, 2015, 10:52:04 PM
So I happened across the Romance mod by Lord Fap, in my search for a mod that makes it easier to get more colonists.. I found it lacked the only thing I'd need from a romance mod, is the extra colonists :o
Well there are two ways for this to be a functionally interesting thing. First is as a straight forward "challenge"; children will be a burden to your colony; an unfortunate incident that adds further drama and tragedy to the story of your doomed colony or...option two is creating growth acceleration chamber and rapidly developing them into a functioning near-adult age human. It would cost resources, be balanced by requiring power at all times while the procedure is running, giving them sickness getting out of it, taking weeks of treatment to get to a point of usefulness, not to mention the research and material cost of the pod itself, and of course, there is the risk of random developmental malformation from acceleration of the human growth cycle.
Make the mod for role playing
Having children is a great way to get more drama in the colony but sadly it will never happen. The amount of Flak Tynan would get would end the game for letting children die in a video game. That said there is a way around that if he just modifies the pawn code in a way that lets modders easily put it in then we can get it that way. Think of all the other games out there with children in them but you cant kill them its for the same reason we cant have children in the colony but on most of those games modders have found a way to let you kill children and the main company does not take the fall for that.
Personally I hope we get it because i think it would make a great story to have your colony almost dead but the last of the adults fall back to the nursury to protect the children.
Quote from: JuliaEllie on March 18, 2016, 11:22:43 AM
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/MTG-ThreadNecromancer_3198.jpg)
Well, might as well comment on it while it's been necro'd.
I've done some experimentation. Turns out: hediff_pregnancy does work on humans. The problem is that the children are born looking like adults with backstories. Graphical body scaling doesn't work with humanlikes like it does with regular animals. It does slow them down, though.
Here's what needs to be added for the most basic colonist breeding:
- A way to give Hediff_pregnancy to colonists.
- A way to assign backstories in a sensible way.
- Smaller baby colonists.
- Make babies not able to do anything.
Due to this, it might be easier just to redefine hediff_pregnancy for humanlikes and change the spawn class to spawn the humanlike babies which turn into regular humanlike pawns at a certain age. This would limit the number of detours needed to either 1 or 0.
As for artificially aging up colonists: I've already got that covered. I made a hediff that will increase aging by any integer amount. I just need to tweak the settings on it and add it to surgery options.
Actually, if someone could suggest how fast this artificial aging should be and for how long it should last, that would be helpful.
Quote from: robotguy4 on August 19, 2016, 06:10:32 AM
Actually, if someone could suggest how fast this artificial aging should be and for how long it should last, that would be helpful.
I think it should be 1 year. Not so fast that it's absolutely ridiculous, but not so slow that most people would lose interest and start a new colony before they age up. I imagine by the second season they'd be old enough to work, but not at full efficiency, and gradually get better as they gain more skills and get older throughout the year.
Just make colonists spawn from eggs!
I think it's interesting that so many of the arguments against it revolve around how long it would take for children to become old enough to be useful. Are all the events in Rimworld beneficial? That's clearly a rhetoric question but my point is that just because children might have a net negative effect on a colony doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Here are some thoughts offhand:
- Children age normally, so they probably won't be able to perform jobs for a long time after birth.
- They would require food and, below a certain age, someone would have to feed them (similar to resting patients and prisoners).
- Parents receive a morale bonus similar to other relationships. This is one way children could provide a benefit, but of course it comes with the risk of a morale penalty if the child dies.
- Children above a certain age can move around but cannot perform jobs. Or, maybe they CAN perform jobs, but certain jobs provide a morale penalty to adults for child labor (similar to penalties for slavery etc).
- You could sell children as slaves for a quick buck. I'm not judging...just presenting an option that aligns with already existing features.
- Children's birthday parties are sure to make everyone happy for a short while. Except Carl. Carl can't have kids so he gets pissed every time a children's birthday party occurs.
- New operation type! C-Section for birth complications. Why only add risk for food costs after a child's birth when you can also risk the mother and child dying during labor!
- It provides a great incentive to add dingoes to the list of animals.
Overall it seems like, in a game where the soft-goal is to make a ship and escape the planet, children would be a net penalty towards that end goal. But this game is more about the story and I think they would provide a lot of opportunities to make the stories more compelling and personable even if they make things harder overall.
Quote from: GiantSpaceHamster on August 19, 2016, 07:38:56 PM
I think it's interesting that so many of the arguments against it revolve around how long it would take for children to become old enough to be useful.
I think that's because a single colony doesn't hold many people's interest longer that five or six in game years. If children were implemented, the late game would have to be made a lot more interesting. Or the children could be made to age rapidly. Either way I feel that a fast aging option in the form of an expensive surgery or something should be available to people who don't want to wait that long.
If this (http://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Time) is correct, it takes about 103.3 real world hours for 13 in game years to pass, the amount of time for a pawn to grow into a teenager.
It takes only 33.33 hours IRL for them to age up to children.
Posted this over at /r/rimworld, but now that this sub is half-alive I'd like to see what you all think too.
I really, really think children would give even more depth to gameplay and help players become more attached to their colonies. They are suggested pretty much weekly, if not daily, in /r/rimworld (https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld/search?q=children&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all). Especially after major alpha releases.
Couple ways I propose to solve some of the problems people bring up, I think it complements /u/DemonicSquid474's thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld/comments/4irko7/children_ideas_for_how_they_might_work/) very nicely:
QuoteChildren dying will bring too much outrage from the gamer community at large
Not sure how much this is a concern, but I read something like this in the official forums.
1. Prevent children from dying, period. Instead of killing children, raiders will kidnap them. Children will be viewed as a high wealth commodity, increasing chance of raids.
2. Starving children will run away.
3. Instead of getting caught in traps, children will play with them and keep on disabling them.
4. Sick children can still die. Or instead of that, or maybe as another option, just have them "permanently unconscious" with an option to send them off to a "hospital planet" when the next "humanitarian" trade ship comes by.
2. Rimworld already has immortal acts well beyond anything people feel comfortable with: incest, organ farms, forced imprisonment, cannibalism, human skin hats. I'm not sure if adding children into the game will change it all that much.
3. Ways to prevent children: a "pregnancy in season" button, allowing colonists to try for babies. An option to "try for baby" when right clicking on the bed (ala sims mode). Birth control for mother and father that vastly decreases chance of pregnancy.
QuoteIt takes too long for children to grow
Retain natural growth but:
1. Availability of futuristic "growth spurt" drugs (glitterworld med?) that move children from one stage to the next. Maybe the cheapest version will boost babies into children, next price from children to teens, and next price from teens to young adults. From here on everyone ages normally
2. Messing up the way that these drugs are given (ie, in the dark, by doctors with low skills, by non-doctors) will limit the type of skills the child will have in the next stage. Maybe severely messing them up will eliminate certain skills like 'no dumb labor' or something.
3. The environment that the child is in while giving the drug will influence their personality: giving it during a raid will make them psychopathic. During food shortage will make them ascetic (while eliminating skills, or adding on depressive trait). During a year of plenty will make them jealous. And so on.
4. Availability of those growth tanks that are part of some pawns' background. These would be more convenient than drugs, since you don't have to take care of them beyond ensuring nutrition and power supply, but result in many of the negatives that vac-grown pawns already get.
Or have children's years condensed, so maybe one year = 1 week by default. I kind of like the drug idea since it gives the option to players to keep children growing au naturale, but this option is always there.
QuoteChildren will be an annoyance
In case the player chooses normal growth, ie without the drugs, or even if they do get the drugs/growth vac have new job options:
1. Midwife during pregnancy - decreases natural abortion rate
2. Community caretaker - responsible for feeding, educating, etc. all children of the community. So children could be handled by the community as a whole, not just the parents, like certain social oriented cultures
3. Babysitter - for those who rely on parents to take care of children, but need a sitter during certain times of day
4. Teacher - teaching children various skills, hauling could be taught here
5. Teacher - teaching high schoolers skills, like maybe crafting
6. Mentor - teaching young adults skills they have a passion for. If they 2heart hunting, they follow an adult hunter around to gain skills.
QuoteChildren will become useless
1. Children can become creatures of joy: they can create little arts or crafts that their parents proudly display in front of the walk-in cooler. They can cuddle their parents. They can cheer up sad or depressive pawns. They also can throw fits, go on a crashing spree (harming every furniture), get lost in the woods, play pretend with other children.
2. Children can also begin hauling objects (but less than adults), grow and harvest crops, clean, etc. Maybe certain children always follow their mother/father around and try to help in the kitchen (hauling meals/ingredients to/from the stove), mines (hauling limited amounts of stone), woods (hauling small game like dead rabbits or iguanas; hauling limited amounts of wood).
3. They can help tame non-violent animals through play (like chickens, puppies, etc) and help feed them
4. Once grown, children will be more likely to have certain traits than others, depending on the care or environment you give them (as I outlined above).
QuotePregnancy will be a sob to handle
Should be handled very similarly to how animal pregnancy is handled right now.
1. Pregnancy can be restricted to one or two seasons (which about encompasses the normal 9 months anyways), just like it is for various animals already.
2. Again, just like for animals already, the mother will be slower, will have morning sickness, and will eat more.
3. For family-oriented pawns, or ones that have "want kids" personality, they will have a permanent buff of something like +15. The colony can be neutral or have a +5 for "bringing new life into the world"
4. Midwives can help with labor and help limit any debuffs the mother will have during pregnancy, like "feeling sick" or "bad night".
5. Doctors would ensure a higher chance the labor won't fail and the baby is healthy, while midwives make sure the mother stays comfortable. Without a midwife the mother would have maybe a -10 debuff for pain, discomfort, etc. Without a doctor the baby is more likely to be born with certain flaws: maybe a leg gets caught in the umbilical cord and needs to be cut off, the mother bleeds to death, the adult slaps the baby's bottom too hard, etc.
All of this would give great stories I think, and deepen the game and storymaking.
Quote from: robotguy4 on August 22, 2016, 11:11:25 PM
If this (http://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Time) is correct, it takes about 103.3 real world hours for 13 in game years to pass, the amount of time for a pawn to grow into a teenager.
It takes only 33.33 hours IRL for them to age up to children.
Those numbers sound about right.
But how often do people really play on 1x speed? Maybe a lot, but I certainly don't. I'm on 3x speed whenever possible, though I pause a lot to do things. I couldn't tell you what that averages out to, but for arguments sake, let's say it averages out to about 2x speed.
So, 16.5 (roughly) hours to age up to a child. I play in about 4 hour stints (often longer, but with extended pauses to take care of things IRL, I'd guess that's roughly correct) so it'd take me 4 sessions of play for a baby to become a child. At the same rate, we're talking 51.5 hours to age up to 13, the minimum age for a full Colonist. That'd be about 13 sessions before a baby became a full Colonist.
I have to say, I doubt I'd ever see a child grow up, at that rate. Some sort of acceleration would need to be necessary for that to work for me. That's not to say that the ideas for children simply as children aren't bad. I like some of the ideas suggested by sc4s2cg, above.
Children should be in the game as a realistic burden. You'll also have a lot more motivation to risk your pawns when their children are starving (Bob dies but through his sacrifice the children of the colony survived). Or when you have a pawn you really like die but their "lineage" lives on through their children. If you have children, you could also add an educator role job depends on social or research. That would make a lot near useless pawns somewhat useful.
I honestly don't know why people think children can't die in video games. My Crusader Kings 2 children die all the time (get maimed too). Obviously we should not want to depict graphic deaths but having children starve to death or die of disease would add some poignancy to this game.
Quote from: sc4s2cg on August 23, 2016, 01:11:03 PM
QuoteChildren dying will bring too much outrage from the gamer community at large
Not sure how much this is a concern, but I read something like this in the official forums.
Whoever is outraged at the idea of having children dying in a video game must be right, because everybody knows children can`t die in real life.
Quote from: Angry on August 26, 2016, 08:01:28 AMWhoever is outraged at the idea of having children dying in a video game must be right, because everybody knows children can`t die in real life.
-OR- People draw lines at what sort of "realistic" fucked up shit they want to see in their entertainment media. My wife, for example, cannot watch any show that involves child abuse or abandonment. It's a BIG button for her. She'll break into tears at the suggestion, and if the situation continues, she'll disengage entirely. Adults horribly maimed, gore, blood everywhere, she eats that stuff up, but children is where she draws the line. She's similarly disturbed by abuse to animals; When I told her that my cougar had miscarried three times due to injuries, she said she wasn't sure she wanted to check the game out.
Rape is another similar button. Others may draw the line at cannibalism, or incest, or child molestation.
Aside from the investment:reward ratio of adding children to the game (how much Fun is added compared to the coding time it takes to do it) Tynan does have to decide where he wants to draw the line. Obviously killing, dismemberment, cannibalism and incest are fine with him (in a fictional setting, presumably......) and he's obviously not too worried about the segment of his potential audience that may dislike these things. Killing children may or may not cross his line, though, and it's obviously something that may turn off some of his audience.
Honestly, given all of that? I don't think we're going to see children in the game, regardless of whether or not Tynan is personally bothered by it.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on August 26, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Angry on August 26, 2016, 08:01:28 AMWhoever is outraged at the idea of having children dying in a video game must be right, because everybody knows children can`t die in real life.
-OR- People draw lines at what sort of "realistic" fucked up shit they want to see in their entertainment media. My wife, for example, cannot watch any show that involves child abuse or abandonment. It's a BIG button for her. She'll break into tears at the suggestion, and if the situation continues, she'll disengage entirely. Adults horribly maimed, gore, blood everywhere, she eats that stuff up, but children is where she draws the line. She's similarly disturbed by abuse to animals; When I told her that my cougar had miscarried three times due to injuries, she said she wasn't sure she wanted to check the game out.
Rape is another similar button. Others may draw the line at cannibalism, or incest, or child molestation.
Aside from the investment:reward ratio of adding children to the game (how much Fun is added compared to the coding time it takes to do it) Tynan does have to decide where he wants to draw the line. Obviously killing, dismemberment, cannibalism and incest are fine with him (in a fictional setting, presumably......) and he's obviously not too worried about the segment of his potential audience that may dislike these things. Killing children may or may not cross his line, though, and it's obviously something that may turn off some of his audience.
Honestly, given all of that? I don't think we're going to see children in the game, regardless of whether or not Tynan is personally bothered by it.
So because someone else is offended by the thought of wargs devouring children corpses then no one else can have children being devoured in the game either? And why the double standard? Who is arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be in a video game? It is like someone comes up to you and say "slavery and organ traffic is cool, but having children dying is immoral!" What would tell that person? I would tell her to fuck off and let me play with children (that doesn`t sound right) and tell her to fuck off again. And who is this person drawing lines? Is there an entity who can speak for the whole community and tell Tynan and the modders that children getting eaten by wargs is wrong? I don`t think so.
At the end of the day however, I too think this will hardly ever be added, either in the official game or by mods, because it is easier to avoid these topics than it is to deal with them, and that is a fucking shame, I wanted to have a little freezer full of dead children for my wargs, who wouldn`t?
Since we're not talking about all video games everywhere, we're were talking Rimworld, the answer to your question is simple, and obvious: Tynan gets to decide what goes into his game.
Other games exist that have child abuse, rape, etc, so your points about some mythical universal set of restrictions are ridiculous and not pertinent.
Technically, breeding would be an action, not a thing. /nerdjoke
All i have to say is i agree to many of the above points. children die all the time in real life. just look at Africa. many of the idea's above by sc4s2cg are awesome. maybe add a contraceptive drug to prevent it from happening. Rim-world is about the stories of the colonists... lives... and apparently as it stands they are all sterile. i do see them maybe being added it later but they are not top priority. i know tynan thought about possibly vat grown clones/babies. but not much else was said on that.
What are children?
The injured prospects that fall out of the sky and become available as contributing members of society after a brief healing period.
Breeding would have to be competitive with that rate of development in order to be a viable alternative to the bio-rain. And it would have to offer something in the way of improvement in order for players to spend effort on it over the free crash pods.
The main characteristics of a colonist are their skill set; is that an inheritable trait that makes parental selection an interesting and worthwhile pursuit? Would advances in gene manipulation contribute to the selection process?
Children and Pregnancy - v0.1j (2017/Feb/14)
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=28747.0
better play and see that make hypothetical assumtions. This mod is not at Steam
How about the "Rimworld Child Plantomatic"
Which would look for relationships of people eligible for make loving. Then you can send one of them to use it. After half a day they finish and the "machine" starts producing a human cloned from their dna. It needs to be fueled with various things like meat, vegetables, wood.... and after 2-3 seasons it creates a 15 yr old human. Make it take a lot of fuel needing large amounts. The human could have a background of cloned human, and have specific stats half that of a parent or random stats.