I feel like this should be a thing in this evil, evil game ;P
You can capture and sell any pawn to slavers for a decent price.
I don't think making young women more valuable would be a good change in any way, shape, or form...
inb4 10+ page long shitstorms calm and polite disagreements.
I don't really see the point.
Quote from: A Friend on May 08, 2017, 12:53:01 AM
inb4 10+ page long shitstorms calm and polite disagreements.
I don't really see the point.
This just might make slavery viable ;) Imagine if you get like 2000 silver for one girl
Quote from: vampiresoap on May 08, 2017, 03:08:02 AM
Quote from: A Friend on May 08, 2017, 12:53:01 AM
inb4 10+ page long shitstorms calm and polite disagreements.
I don't really see the point.
This just might make slavery viable ;) Imagine if you get like 2000 silver for one girl
Don't you already get 2000 silver a prisoner? I bought One of my better colonists with 2300 or so silver. If you just start up a slaver caravan I'm sure you'd get to sell at similar prices... Now that I mention it, is it even possible to make a slave caravan?
Quote from: Circledline on May 08, 2017, 11:05:58 AM
Quote from: vampiresoap on May 08, 2017, 03:08:02 AM
Quote from: A Friend on May 08, 2017, 12:53:01 AM
inb4 10+ page long shitstorms calm and polite disagreements.
I don't really see the point.
This just might make slavery viable ;) Imagine if you get like 2000 silver for one girl
Don't you already get 2000 silver a prisoner? I bought One of my better colonists with 2300 or so silver. If you just start up a slaver caravan I'm sure you'd get to sell at similar prices... Now that I mention it, is it even possible to make a slave caravan?
I'm pretty sure most prisoners sell for about 500 silver each...But yes to running a slaver ring on the planet ;) Please add that into the game ;P
I see where you're going with this, and I see how it conforms to historical trends in real life, but that's just CREEPY.
Quote from: O Negative on May 08, 2017, 12:14:14 AM
I don't think making young women more valuable would be a good change in any way, shape, or form...
Because we can have realism when it comes to infections in your pinky. But GET AWAY WITH YOUR HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY PROVEN MISOGYNY REEEEE
Quote from: vampiresoap on May 08, 2017, 02:57:39 PM
Quote from: Circledline on May 08, 2017, 11:05:58 AM
Quote from: vampiresoap on May 08, 2017, 03:08:02 AM
Quote from: A Friend on May 08, 2017, 12:53:01 AM
inb4 10+ page long shitstorms calm and polite disagreements.
I don't really see the point.
This just might make slavery viable ;) Imagine if you get like 2000 silver for one girl
Don't you already get 2000 silver a prisoner? I bought One of my better colonists with 2300 or so silver. If you just start up a slaver caravan I'm sure you'd get to sell at similar prices... Now that I mention it, is it even possible to make a slave caravan?
I'm pretty sure most prisoners sell for about 500 silver each...But yes to running a slaver ring on the planet ;) Please add that into the game ;P
Since I hopped into the game I checked and found out that a baseline human, 1 in crafting and 1 in social (lowest possible to my knowledge), no passions, no traits, no medical conditions, aged 14 is worth 390 silver, regardless of gender. A bionic super soldier with painstopper, maxed passions and skills, beautiful, iron-willed, and sanguine traits is worth 5250 silver. Take the average at 2820 and you realise this is an absolutely useless number because it doesn't give us any range for the normal colonists so I took my top colony and calculated the average market value of the non-injured pawns and got an average of 1581.67 silver per colonist. I might just have a really good or bad set of colonists, but it's likely this number is close to the average pawns value. Of course without slave caravans (which I didn't get a chance to test if they are available) you probably won't get a better price over 1000, but with as many prisoners as you can sometimes get, voiding the annoying moodlet, it's a great way to do slavery without giving up anybody actually important from the colony. It's much better than trying to recruit them with a 0.7% chance of it actually working.
As for the historical aspect, there was a reason why people did it. I won't name any organizations but even today it is a practice to essentially enslave women into doing nothing more than breeding for the purposes of bolstering the population since a higher population means more manpower. In the Rimworld where there really is no need for that, I don't see how a woman would really be put any higher than a man. If we're going for realism, the man should be more expensive for in their development they grow larger and stronger than their female counterparts. If we're talking about people like cattle, I'd want the strong and manly bull, not the weaker milk-producing cow. Of course you need both for breeding purposes, but there would be no point unless the game actually had pregnancy enabled for humans. There's no point at all because whether you're male or female doesn't matter since everyone is equally strong, the beautiful trait is equally beautiful, and there is no reason to not just have a colony comprised entirely of one gender or the other.
Quote from: Razzoriel on May 08, 2017, 03:28:29 PM
Because we can have realism when it comes to infections in your pinky. But GET AWAY WITH YOUR HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY PROVEN MISOGYNY REEEEE
Yes, actually. You hit the nail right on the head with that one.
When it comes to game design, there are arguments for realism, and there are arguments against it.
That is to say, not all arguments for realism are good. Sometimes, they're actually horrible. :D
Quote from: ymc on May 08, 2017, 09:40:30 PM
The over-the-top flak that Tynan caught for some of the fairly innocent behind-the-scenes code handling of how genders react to eachother and relationship possibility, even though it was bang-on for how our race has operated for millennia, makes me think they won't touch this idea with a 100-foot pole.
ymc gets it. :D
Quote from: ymc on May 08, 2017, 09:40:30 PM
The over-the-top flak that Tynan caught for some of the fairly innocent behind-the-scenes code handling of how genders react to eachother and relationship possibility, even though it was bang-on for how our race has operated for millennia, makes me think they won't touch this idea with a 100-foot pole.
Found it, and I'm quite surprised this happened. I'm also for the most part confused. What exactly is bad about this and why does this system exist in the first place? I personally think having unique quirks for both men and women to closer reflect real life would be a neat touch, although admittedly just that, neat. I wouldn't pay much more mind to it than any other mechanic like the cover system or animal bonds. If it isn't the main focus of the game (that being to simulate a gritty sci-fi survival scenario), so what? It doesn't detract from game and it barely adds.
Keeping on focus however, I see clearly why a system where young female slaves are more valuable, even if it would make sense with the romancing mechanics. From the controversy to the games vision, it just wouldn't fit. Too many people would either get angry or be put-off by such a mechanic. It would no longer make the slavers a fitting mechanic that provides players with colonists, but rather a reminder of the sorts of terrors of the real world, and I personally would feel really bad about selling my prisoners to slavery at that point. Not sad enough to quit the game, but enough to stop using the mechanic almost in its entirety.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/34/ef/d4/34efd4b3e68a29bca66e24e2814d1520.jpg) | In a previous life I was working on a Minecraft mod that had some controversial sound elements.
The Parental Influence Stabilization Society quickly moved to swamp the forums with tales of woe and calamity, and how it caused difficulty sleeping at night. Not for them, mind you, but for the kids.
So I installed a parental filter checkbox on the mod.
Anyone wishing not to see or hear things outside their comfort zone were then able to play the mod without offense, and trolls attempting to impose their fears on other lives were subdued.
|
Quote from: Harold3456 on May 08, 2017, 03:02:55 PM
I see where you're going with this, and I see how it conforms to historical trends in real life, but that's just CREEPY.
And skinning people and then making hats out of their skin isn't? :P
I think that skill/age/health should affect price of slaves more. You wouldn't pay the same for 20 yo sexy gurl who can also do engineering and 60 yo meth addict who will burn your house in the night (also - missing a hand and three fingers).
It makes all the sense in the world, no matter if you find it creepy/politically incorrect/whatever. TBH, if some of the retarded politically correct media were to get to know about this, RimWorld would get some publicity... :-V
kerk
Quote from: Perq on May 09, 2017, 01:25:42 AM
And skinning people and then making hats out of their skin isn't? :P
I think that skill/age/health should affect price of slaves more. You wouldn't pay the same for 20 yo sexy gurl who can also do engineering and 60 yo meth addict who will burn your house in the night (also - missing a hand and three fingers).
It makes all the sense in the world, no matter if you find it creepy/politically incorrect/whatever. TBH, if some of the retarded politically correct media would get to know about this RimWorld would get some publicity... :-V
kerk
Skinning people and making clothing out of their leather isn't a prevalent real-world issue. Human (SEX) trafficking
IS. That's why it's an inappropriate suggestion.
I know for a fact that health is already accounted for in the value of a pawn. I can't say I know anything about skill or age, although I'm sure it wouldn't take much digging to find out. Skill, age, and health are all acceptable variables for market value influence. That's not what
this suggestion is, and you
know this to be true. That simple fact completely destroys your argument.
I get that it makes sense, to an extent, and that it happens in real life. But,
not all things that exist in real life belong in RimWorld. People keep trying to use that argument for some of the most absurd things, and it's ridiculous! You're free to explore whatever kinky/creepy fetishes you have in mods, but keep it
out of the core game.
Quote from: AngleWyrm on May 09, 2017, 12:54:51 AM
So I installed a parental filter checkbox on the mod.
HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WE NEED TO CLICK ON A BOX TO NOT BE AFFECTED AND PERMANENTLY SCARRED BY THIS FICTIONAL WORLD WHERE PIXELS ARE SOLD BY MORE PIXELS THAN ANOTHER GROUP OF PIXEL!
Seriously. Controversy sells. If Tynan does it, and the snowflakes get mad over it, it's good publicity, given how mentally ill those people are.
I think that maybe the pawn you are trading with would have their own traits and such, and that should mod the price. So if they hate a gender, they might not want to buy them or pay as much vs if its someone they would like. So as a baseline, a trader buying someone of the opposite gender might pay more if they are young, more if they are beautiful, and more if they have other traits like 'hard worker' or something.
So, you dont have certain genders always worth more, it just matters to whom you are selling.
As for the flack Tynan got, he based it, as i understand it, on his own personal experience talking with friends. So I think he was right to do it that way. Personally I lack those types of sources (that im aware of) so if I was doing it, I would base it on research with google. Either way, some people just look for scandal to get them 'likes' and cause a fuss.
Seriously. Controversy sells. If Tynan does it, and the snowflakes get mad over it, it's good publicity, given how mentally ill those people are.
[/quote]
I'd say a bit rude, but I agree. Look at Lisa and tell me that the themes in that game didn't sell. There are people who want this harshness of reality in their games. If Sylvester wants it harsh, not only on the players pawns, but also on the player themselves, it might be worth adding such a mechanic. On one hand, there's all this controversy, and on the other hand there's an unsettling feeling that has yet to be added. He wants the game to be brutal, while not conforming to reality. A world with endless drama directed towards the player until all their pawns escape or die in the dozens of ways they can do so. That's for the devs to decide, and more importantly, for us to discuss.
Alternatively, the devs could make the losing already in the game feel worse. Make it so that once in a while you do have to eat a fellow colonist, or burn valuable items to keep yourself warm at night. Randy Random doesn't push it enough. Too many times have I survived with zero casualties crashed ships, raiders, any disease and the hundreds of times my pawns ate raw food and got food poisoning. I can just tough it out through any problem. Until there's an infestation that is. I've had half of my colony die because they just kept coming, kept tanking, and I didn't want to burn all my valuable loot. Sure the steel and the gold and the jade would've survived, but not the medicine and definitely not the luciferium. As common as it is, I had all my luciferium in that one room. I will never make that mistake again.
Also, I tested it. Health including everything from scars to recent bullet wounds does affect the value of a slave, aswell as skills. Age it might not seem like it, but as a pawn gets older their chances of catching diseases and getting food poisoning and the such increase making them an overall slightly worse pawn. Cataracts on a 14 yo pawn affects it the same as a 104 yo pawn, but the older one will still be worth less because of declining health, or so I would assume until I popped into the ole editor and found out a pawn despite of age is still worth the same amount of points, at least I'm 90% sure that's the case since the points counter on the bottom stayed the same, so age would realistically affect pawn value, but in-game it doesn't.
Crusader Kings 2 seems to get around the whole "violence against children" thing quite nicely. I'm sure a little thought on @Tynan 's part would end up with an elegant solution.
Children are going to have to happen eventually.
Yeah in Crusader Kings 2 you can capture females and force them to marry you. It's effectively rape but nobody said anything about it because it's not as popular as some AAA games. It's not on the radar of the SJW's yet ;p Normal people just go like,"yeah, that happened in history" or "it's just a game."
Quote from: O Negative on May 09, 2017, 01:37:25 AM
Skinning people and making clothing out of their leather isn't a prevalent real-world issue. Human (SEX) trafficking IS. That's why it's an inappropriate suggestion.
I get that it makes sense, to an extent, and that it happens in real life. But, not all things that exist in real life belong in RimWorld. People keep trying to use that argument for some of the most absurd things, and it's ridiculous! You're free to explore whatever kinky/creepy fetishes you have in mods, but keep it out of the core game.
Pawns can starve in RimWorld. Starvation IS prevalent real-world issue.
Pawns can kill each other in RimWorld (especially pirates to steal your stuff). Piracy/War IS prevalent real-world issue (there are armed men on ships to prevent hostage situations nowadays).
Pawns can get intoxicated with drugs. Hard drugs. Drugs abuse IS prevalent real-world issue.
You can sit all day and list things that are prevalent real-world issues that are also present in RimWorld. Thing is, RimWorld
ISN'T real life. It is all matter of what one finds emotionally offensive, which in turn is highly subjective. You say it is crossing the line, I say it isn't. Simply because it is a video game which is for
mature audiences only anyways. But that is my take on it, and I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me here.
You see, there are people out there who' mark RimWorld as
insensitive (triggering, eh heh), because of things it has already. Does this mean these things don't
belong in RimWorld?
I say it is more about whenever these elements make for an interesting gameplay and not current political correctness boundaries. And from my point of view, these would add some flavor to the game, no matter if you like that flavor, or not.
Ps. No need for pointing fingers whenever someone has any kind of fetishes. :_) Lets talk about the issue, and not about people, kay?
(I don't have one, tho).
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on May 09, 2017, 09:50:49 AM
I think that maybe the pawn you are trading with would have their own traits and such, and that should mod the price. So if they hate a gender, they might not want to buy them or pay as much vs if its someone they would like. So as a baseline, a trader buying someone of the opposite gender might pay more if they are young, more if they are beautiful, and more if they have other traits like 'hard worker' or something.
Slavers don't care whenever they like the slaves or not. They only care if they can get good price for them. And if they do, well, they are shitty slavers and will most likely die. :P
So even if they
don't like males, they sure as hell know that young, strong and able men will be expensive (because buyers want such men). Same goes for young and attractive women.
The thing is, slavers don't think of slaves as of humans, but as of goods they can make money from.
Quote from: Perq on May 12, 2017, 03:29:09 AM
Quote from: O Negative on May 09, 2017, 01:37:25 AM
Skinning people and making clothing out of their leather isn't a prevalent real-world issue. Human (SEX) trafficking IS. That's why it's an inappropriate suggestion.
I get that it makes sense, to an extent, and that it happens in real life. But, not all things that exist in real life belong in RimWorld. People keep trying to use that argument for some of the most absurd things, and it's ridiculous! You're free to explore whatever kinky/creepy fetishes you have in mods, but keep it out of the core game.
Pawns can starve in RimWorld. Starvation IS prevalent real-world issue.
Pawns can kill each other in RimWorld (especially pirates to steal your stuff). Piracy/War IS prevalent real-world issue (there are armed men on ships to prevent hostage situations nowadays).
Pawns can get intoxicated with drugs. Hard drugs. Drugs abuse IS prevalent real-world issue.
You can sit all day and list things that are prevalent real-world issues that are also present in RimWorld. Thing is, RimWorld ISN'T real life. It is all matter of what one finds emotionally offensive, which in turn is highly subjective. You say it is crossing the line, I say it isn't. Simply because it is a video game which is for mature audiences only anyways. But that is my take on it, and I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me here.
You see, there are people out there who' mark RimWorld as insensitive (triggering, eh heh), because of things it has already. Does this mean these things don't belong in RimWorld?
I say it is more about whenever these elements make for an interesting gameplay and not current political correctness boundaries. And from my point of view, these would add some flavor to the game, no matter if you like that flavor, or not.
Ps. No need for pointing fingers whenever someone has any kind of fetishes. :_) Lets talk about the issue, and not about people, kay?
(I don't have one, tho).
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on May 09, 2017, 09:50:49 AM
I think that maybe the pawn you are trading with would have their own traits and such, and that should mod the price. So if they hate a gender, they might not want to buy them or pay as much vs if its someone they would like. So as a baseline, a trader buying someone of the opposite gender might pay more if they are young, more if they are beautiful, and more if they have other traits like 'hard worker' or something.
Slavers don't care whenever they like the slaves or not. They only care if they can get good price for them. And if they do, well, they are shitty slavers and will most likely die. :P
So even if they don't like males, they sure as hell know that young, strong and able men will be expensive (because buyers want such men). Same goes for young and attractive women.
The thing is, slavers don't think of slaves as of humans, but as of goods they can make money from.
So true, brother. People who get upset about games and/or movies, especially when the games accurately portray reality are simply very immature...I swear sometimes it feels like telling my little brother to turn around when there's a sex-implied scene going on in a TV show or something. And then there's people who just can't tell the difference between games and real life and getting all butt hurt about it. That's just a mental illness and it's not our problem.
I give 0 shit about controversies and political correctness.
Personally my issue with these type of suggestions is that it seems less about making the game more engaging or fun and more of "Heh, hey I wonder what would happen if X got added into the game".
It just seems... pointless. It doesn't really add anything interesting, it doesn't make slavery more fun to do, it'd be just there because "reasons". What we have works. Don't need to fix what's not broken.
But while stuff like cannibalism may be a real thing, scenarios where a dude bites off a corpse's head just because he couldn't be bothered to go to the fridge is a situation so absurd that it's downright comedic. Meanwhile the rape, incest and other horrid shit CK has creates incredibly absurd scenarios like using your own daughter to create an army of inbred freaks. As disturbing at it sounds, you can't help but laugh. It adds to the game. That's why they have that, and that's why we have cannibalism and cowboy hats.
But thinking it over, I think the "Beautiful" and "Pretty" trait should be counted in the price tag. While "Ugly" makes slavers give you a discount. As it seems more fitting than "because vagina".
Quote from: A Friend on May 12, 2017, 07:53:34 AM
I give 0 shit about controversies and political correctness.
Personally my issue with these type of suggestions is that it seems less about making the game more engaging or fun and more of "Heh, hey I wonder what would happen if X got added into the game".
It just seems... pointless. It doesn't really add anything interesting, it doesn't make slavery more fun to do, it'd be just there because "reasons". What we have works. Don't need to fix what's not broken.
But while stuff like cannibalism may be a real thing, scenarios where a dude bites off a corpse's head just because he couldn't be bothered to go to the fridge is a situation so absurd that it's downright comedic. Meanwhile the rape, incest and other horrid shit CK has creates incredibly absurd scenarios like using your own daughter to create an army of inbred freaks. As disturbing at it sounds, you can't help but laugh. It adds to the game. That's why they have that, and that's why we have cannibalism and cowboy hats.
But thinking it over, I think the "Beautiful" and "Pretty" trait should be counted in the price tag. While "Ugly" makes slavers give you a discount. As it seems more fitting than "because vagina".
"Because vagina" is a huge factor in the slave trade. Also, what I suggest adds realism. It's not adding NOTHING to the game. I don't know where you get that from.
Okay, aside from realism, what else does it add
I agree with A Friend on this one. Altho, for the different reasons.
Adding this feature now wouldn't change much since playing as a slaver is not very viable way of playing. Mainly because we are given our style of colony from the start. This is why we have mood penalties for doing slavery stuff, harvesting organs and so on.
Maybe in the future we could get an option to disable groups of mood penalties (and/or other mechanics) to enable such play styles. Aside from slavers I can think of cannibals. There are probably more. :P
In other words, it doesn't make sense to add such a thing because current state of the game isn't exactly fit for it. Enabling other play styles (by altering some game mechanics) would render such feature useful. As a slaver it would make a difference in the way you play because you'd pay attention to who you're kidnaping.
Ps. @vampiresoap while I adore the notion of people agreeing with me (who doesn't, lol), I'm not so keen on personal attacks. Please, keep the discussion about the arguments and not people behind those arguments. Thanks. :)
Quote from: Perq on May 12, 2017, 08:28:58 AM
I agree with A Friend on this one. Altho, for the different reasons.
Adding this feature now wouldn't change much since playing as a slaver is not very viable way of playing. Mainly because we are given our style of colony from the start. This is why we have mood penalties for doing slavery stuff, harvesting organs and so on.
Maybe in the future we could get an option to disable groups of mood penalties (and/or other mechanics) to enable such play styles. Aside from slavers I can think of cannibals. There are probably more. :P
In other words, it doesn't make sense to add such a thing because current state of the game isn't exactly fit for it. Enabling other play styles (by altering some game mechanics) would render such feature useful. As a slaver it would make a difference in the way you play because you'd pay attention to who you're kidnaping.
Ps. @vampiresoap while I adore the notion of people agreeing with me (who doesn't, lol), I'm not so keen on personal attacks. Please, keep the discussion about the arguments and not people behind those arguments. Thanks. :)
Slavering becomes viable if you get like, I don't know, 4 or 5 grands for each young girl you sell. It also makes more worth the risk of raiding an enemy base because as of now there's no reason to do that at all.
A different argument could be made to make slavery more viable. Just increase the value of all pawns. That would actually make slavery more viable than the original suggestion.
*It would also make slavery less helpful for those looking to increase population of their colony through slave traders.
Political correctness aside, A Friend has arguably made the best point in this entire thread.
You can already sell and buy colonists for whatever purposes you want. This suggestion serves only to basically "poke the hornets nest" to try to provoke a response since there is no reason that young females would be worth more since in this game, females are both as prevalent men, and as capable as men.
Yeah try telling the slaver who came all the way to your camp that a 70 year-old dude is worth almost as much as a 20-something blonde. At some point this isn't even about "adding realism" or "political correctness". It's just common sense.
There's nothing intrinsically more valuable about female pawns than male pawns in this game. So unless you are some pervy creep who wants to roleplay it really adds nothing.
I do agree that slave value could be better balanced. I play tribal a lot so end up selling more than a few slaves and find it odd that an almost 60 yr old pawn would be worth more than a 20 yr old just because they have better skills. A young unskilled pawn with several passions and no incapabilities is worth gold to me. They train up fast enough. ;)
I do like the idea of the pawn's beauty (or lack thereof) affecting price too. Attractive pawns generally find a partner. Happy couples make for happy colonies. Lol
But making young females more valuable, as mentioned upthread, "because vagina" makes no sense. Then hot young guys should be worth more for exactly the same reason. "Because penis."
A price discrepancy exists between an old man and a healthy young woman.
I just generated a bunch of each in-game and averaged out their market values.
Old woman/man: 784
Young man/woman: 1050
Difference: ~25%
I would argue in favor of a larger gap in price between the two. The market value of (any) human pawn should be increased, and the health problems associated with old age should have a greater toll on how much a person is worth.
The thing about this, right, is that you can't use sex (verb) as an argument here. You can't say that any of the factions, not even your own, would be willing to pay more "because vagina." Why? Because sex between pawns only ever happens when it's consensual in this game. Who's to even say slave traders are interested in women? What happens when you run into a trade caravan full of homosexual males? (Hypothetical, rare, obviously) lol
I also like Rimrue's argument :)
Quote from: Rimrue on May 12, 2017, 04:24:22 PM
There's nothing intrinsically more valuable about female pawns than male pawns in this game. So unless you are some pervy creep who wants to roleplay it really adds nothing.
I do agree that slave value could be better balanced. I play tribal a lot so end up selling more than a few slaves and find it odd that an almost 60 yr old pawn would be worth more than a 20 yr old just because they have better skills. A young unskilled pawn with several passions and no incapabilities is worth gold to me. They train up fast enough. ;)
I do like the idea of the pawn's beauty (or lack thereof) affecting price too. Attractive pawns generally find a partner. Happy couples make for happy colonies. Lol
But making young females more valuable, as mentioned upthread, "because vagina" makes no sense. Then hot young guys should be worth more for exactly the same reason. "Because penis."
IN the real-world pre-Civil War South, slaves with applicable skills were worth far, FAR,
FAR more than the general work-slaves.
You could buy a "general-purpose" (aka unskilled farm laborer) slave for a couple hundred bucks. Someone with a valuable skill, like a blacksmith or a carpenter, could go for upwards of a couple thousand.
And that is in 1840s money.
Quote from: Boston on May 12, 2017, 05:00:19 PM
IN the real-world pre-Civil War South, slaves with applicable skills were worth far, FAR, FAR more than the general work-slaves.
You could buy a "general-purpose" (aka unskilled farm laborer) slave for a couple hundred bucks. Someone with a valuable skill, like a blacksmith or a carpenter, could go for upwards of a couple thousand.
And that is in 1840s money.
I'm not saying skilled pawns shouldn't be more valuable, but in Rimworld, the skilled pawns generally come with a set of undesirable qualities. They're often old, and therefore have health issues, have bad traits, or they've got a bunch of incapabilities. Having traded a fair number of slaves, I can tell you, I'd rather have the unskilled pawn that has no bad traits, health issues, or incapabilities. As I said, they train up quick enough. Lol
Its an interesting idea, but if women should be sold off in slavery at a higher price due to sexual appeal, I feel more factors should be involved. Like how many times one has "made love" in life, scars, and other factors : because yes, young women can fetch a huge price, but factors like body aesthetics, if they are a virgin (or at least not completely "ruined), sexual health, and race all play factors
Its not a pretty subject, but these are the factors which influence say, the isis sex trade.
Also find it hysterical people are ok with cannibalism, amputation of peoples limbs for kicks, getting people forcibly addicted to crack, and infecting them with the cyber equivalent of aids (luciferium) and sending them back to their settlement for a horrible death, and even selling slaves....but if the prices are semi realistic?! Thats TOO FAR DAMMIT!
...Course it seems people simply don't want any differences between men and women, short of the body shape. Its almost like differences in the sexes is a holy grail which cannot be touched, or people get offended
Quote from: A Friend on May 12, 2017, 08:15:58 AM
Okay, aside from realism, what else does it add
Economic opportunity for raider scum, invitation to focus on differences in gender (it would be an opening into it at least), possibility for raiders to target colonists based on gender making battle a little different, ect...
I would argue this is part of a greater issue of having differences between the sexes : something which effectively doesn't exist right now : infact tynan could remove sexes in v18, and besides psychic events, romance, and "hates men / women", the game would be unaffected since thats pretty much the extent of the differences, and I for the life of me see no reason why the sexes SHOULD NOT be elaborated on, just because a few people feel uncomfortable.
Also, since someone said the sex trade being common is why we can't add this : if making human skin coats became common, would tynan have to patch it out? What about murder? murder is more common than sex trafficking, but is allowed...what gives?
Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2017, 10:11:40 PM
Also, since someone said the sex trade being common is why we can't add this : if making human skin coats became common, would tynan have to patch it out? What about murder? murder is more common than sex trafficking, but is allowed...what gives?
I want to start by saying I come back to this website after about 4 days and it's THIS thread that's still on the front page lol. This struck me as some crack idea that somebody decided to make a fun thread about, and then it became a debate somehow.
The argument "because it happens too often in real life" isn't a good one for this game because, yes, you can go full Donner party with a colony of cannibals and make a fortune selling human meat (which is, for some reason, very valuable to traders) and human leather coats.
The better argument is that it.... just doesn't add gameplay value. As others have said, nonconsensual sex doesn't occur in this game, so the only way to make selling young women as slaves intuitive to a player is to allow a player to also BUY sex slaves. Otherwise it's nothing more than an Easter egg. So unless you want the +30 moodlet "Pleasured by sex slave" for your own colonists (which would require a total morality overhaul, given that these guys still feel guilty for executing guilty prisoners) it would never fit in.
Upon further reading, this thread seems to have collected the "anti-PC" crowd, which is odd because opposition to this idea isn't due to political correctness, but rather to how little it would add to gameplay/immersion. Do you really feel pulled out of the realism of this game because a young female pawn isn't pulling in a rape-worthy price?
I can agree. I have a hard time no helping someone, but when they add nothing to the community, I also hard a hard time allowing them to stay...
Oh... I want to heal you... but, ohhh... You suck for skills...
Let me being a decent person and help them survive a crash... But then let them fend for themselves.
Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2017, 10:11:40 PM
Its an interesting idea, but if women should be sold off in slavery at a higher price due to sexual appeal, I feel more factors should be involved. Like how many times one has "made love" in life, scars, and other factors : because yes, young women can fetch a huge price, but factors like body aesthetics, if they are a virgin (or at least not completely "ruined), sexual health, and race all play factors
Its not a pretty subject, but these are the factors which influence say, the isis sex trade.
Also find it hysterical people are ok with cannibalism, amputation of peoples limbs for kicks, getting people forcibly addicted to crack, and infecting them with the cyber equivalent of aids (luciferium) and sending them back to their settlement for a horrible death, and even selling slaves....but if the prices are semi realistic?! Thats TOO FAR DAMMIT!
...Course it seems people simply don't want any differences between men and women, short of the body shape. Its almost like differences in the sexes is a holy grail which cannot be touched, or people get offended
Quote from: A Friend on May 12, 2017, 08:15:58 AM
Okay, aside from realism, what else does it add
Economic opportunity for raider scum, invitation to focus on differences in gender (it would be an opening into it at least), possibility for raiders to target colonists based on gender making battle a little different, ect...
I would argue this is part of a greater issue of having differences between the sexes : something which effectively doesn't exist right now : infact tynan could remove sexes in v18, and besides psychic events, romance, and "hates men / women", the game would be unaffected since thats pretty much the extent of the differences, and I for the life of me see no reason why the sexes SHOULD NOT be elaborated on, just because a few people feel uncomfortable.
Also, since someone said the sex trade being common is why we can't add this : if making human skin coats became common, would tynan have to patch it out? What about murder? murder is more common than sex trafficking, but is allowed...what gives?
haha your post really speaks volumes ;) If you wanna make it so that there's no difference between the sexes in a game, then why did you even add the sexes in the first place? Why not just make every pawn unisex? Well, it's because that's bullshit. Men and women are different. Gender is binary. We all know it and I'm just sick of everybody living in the fantasy land of make-believe "gender spectrums". I'm also sick of game developers or entertainment in general kowtowing to this idiotic trend.
Quote from: Harold3456 on May 13, 2017, 12:39:42 AM
The argument "because it happens too often in real life" isn't a good one for this game
Upon further reading, this thread seems to have collected the "anti-PC" crowd, which is odd because opposition to this idea isn't due to political correctness
Its not JUST that it happens in real life, its that it would add something to make men and women more than just a skin change. I agree this is a small change in a lot of ways, but its part of a bigger argument : defining men and women. Currently men and women are nothing special either way.
As for PC : did you read the thread? Several people were saying this would be offensive.
And its less the "rape worthy price", and more than men and women have 0 differences in practice, besides romance rates, so yes, I support any idea making it a bit different. Long as it makes some form of sense
Also nobody explained why sex slavery is bad, and murder / violence is not.
Quote from: vampiresoap on May 13, 2017, 04:19:50 AM
haha your post really speaks volumes ;) If you wanna make it so that there's no difference between the sexes in a game, then why did you even add the sexes in the first place? Why not just make every pawn unisex? Well, it's because that's bullshit. Men and women are different. Gender is binary. We all know it and I'm just sick of everybody living in the fantasy land of make-believe "gender spectrums". I'm also sick of game developers or entertainment in general kowtowing to this idiotic trend.
They include sex, because frankly listing them as colonist a, colonist b, and not having the sex would be weird : outside of aesthetics (name, body shape) theres no mechanical differences outside the 2 very subtle ones I mentioned : which are seldom even noticed. I suppose tynan included sex as a stat because it would be WEIRD to have the name randomizer and body randomizer not match : imagine a delicate girly body named bubba, or a hulk of a dude named cynthia : yeah, not sure those names are in the game, but it would ruin immersion : this is why the male and female thing are there IMO, and the romance / psychic wave things were added on...but like I said, THATS IT, theres no other factors beyond that, that is THE full extent to the differences in the sexes. All games have this, and have no differences in sex besides that : xcom enemy unknown for instance, has the 2 sexes, but has no other differences besides model and voice.
But thats the thing : men and women are far more different than that, and you know it : but can you list a single difference outside the things above? Outside aesthetics (name, model) romance rates (might never even be encountered) and psychic waves (a coin flip)?
Its like saying the races in rimworld are different because THEY are included : sure they exist, but they have 0 tangible differences that I'm aware of, outside the fact its noticeable via skin color.
I can appreciate how you view the gender thing, but then I hope you would keep this in mind : in other games its less of a bother, but getting a deeper simulation game, its rather aggravating when such an obvious factor is entirely ignored. If rimworld is such a deep simulation, differences in sex SOMEWHERE should be shown besides those few things.
I haven't really done any slave trading (as stated, not really profitable) in A16, but I'm sure earlier alphas had a big difference in sell price based on age, health and skillset. If that's no longer a thing, it should be. It adds the needed elements to make slave trading profitable without offending anyone.
Besides, slavery isn't the same as sex trafficking. It's not necessarily the same buyers, and a culture might hypothetically allow slavery but also have a strong taboo against rape. Or vice versa.
Whats exactly the problem with offending people? it happened with drugs being added, rimworld didn't shut down. Also happened with the whole romance code examination, and again, didn't shut down.
Also, sex trafficking is a type of slavery, and frankly theres no tracking in what type of slavery a pawn is sold into : it seems to me it could be anything from sex trafficking, to mercenary work, to hard labor, to being an meatsack to do horrific experiments on. Only difference is this change would be an indicator for "yes, this person IS being sold for sex"
Quote from: cultist on May 13, 2017, 08:36:45 AM
a strong taboo against rape
You aren't talking about pirates, or slavers in general are you?...highly doubt they would give a damn.
Quote from: mumblemumble on May 13, 2017, 08:57:23 AM
Whats exactly the problem with offending people? it happened with drugs being added, rimworld didn't shut down. Also happened with the whole romance code examination, and again, didn't shut down.
And therefore we need to increase the controversy factor further? Why? What is the point of edging ever closer to some feature or element that will eventually cause real controversy and not just a bit of bad press? I don't get this point of view.
But whos the judge of what a "REAL" controversy is? Some would argue drugs were, some would argue the romance rates were, some would say cannibalism is. Rimworld is no stranger to attrocities and horrible sickening events, just ones which have anything to do with the sexes : I feel more could be added to the game with some differences to the sexes, and would even add to storytelling.
Its a relativistic factor, and you are in essence saying "we should not add anything more controversial ever, because next time we won't be so lucky". Or am I misunderstanding?
Quote from: mumblemumble on May 13, 2017, 09:35:49 AM
Its a relativistic factor, and you are in essence saying "we should not add anything more controversial ever, because next time we won't be so lucky". Or am I misunderstanding?
I'm saying the game has already ticked multiple boxes of potential controversy. If you just keep piling it on with the attitude that no matter what, anyone offended is a crybaby, you're essentially just trying to run the project off the tracks so you can have massive outrage for its own sake.
Quote from: cultist on May 13, 2017, 09:12:07 AM
And therefore we need to increase the controversy factor further? Why? What is the point of edging ever closer to some feature or element that will eventually cause real controversy and not just a bit of bad press? I don't get this point of view.
Why not? Controversy nets popularity. It might be dirty way of doing things, but it works. And really, how is it different than other controversial things that are in the game?
I wonder, why people get so emotional about anything being close to rape, while nobody gives a second look to things like harvesting organs?
Not even talking about killing people or being able to drug someone to death. Or sever his limbs and then intoxicate him with hard drugs. And when he dies feed him to the dogs.
And again bunch of people suggesting that anyone who sees nothing exceptional about this suggestion must be some kind of creep/psycho or whatnot. People, this only tells a lot about merit of your arguments... :@
EDIT: I'd love to also remind you that there are people out there who'd call you psychos because you play violent games (like RimWorld). And that violent games make you violent.
Perq has a good point : remember hatred? pretty much a shitty, edgy clone of postal 1, but it sold well BECAUSE it was controversial, despite being a pretty bad game ANYWAYS. Postal 2 is another example : you can piss on people to put them out, use cats as silencers, and despite being a rather mediocre game, it sold, even with the outrageousness. Infact, it made it sell better. Heck, even games which WEREN'T made on the merit of being politically incorrect didn't suffer. Remember bioshock infinite? That got flack for having BLATANT racism (nobody was ever call a nigger in it, as far as I can recall, but it was close) But it still sold quite well, EVEN in the mainstream game climate, with Anita Sarkesian, ect. Infact, I don't think anybody got remotely close to boycotting it, because it was a cool game.
Besides that, cultist, your argument brings up an interesting thought : what if we already gone past it? What if rim-world has already gone too far? Where is the line? Is there a line? Or perhaps maybe something being a reflection of humanity should reflect humanity, in its worst and best?
And honestly, I doubt the outrage even if say, full on rape WAS added, could be that bad, if Tynan took it with the position of it being a tragedy in game : This is what I find the most strange : nobody is arguing rape or sexual slavery is a good thing, a healthy thing, a beneficial thing in society : If I'm wrong, and someone on the forum has said this, go ahead and let me know, but people talk about these things because rim-world is about equal part tragedy and triumph. So please know this : it is NOT about people wanting rape to be mainstream in real life, its about enhancing the tragedy simulation of the game.
Quote from: mumblemumble on May 13, 2017, 10:52:27 AM
What if rim-world has already gone too far?
The difference is that all the areas where it could be said to go too far
actually add something to the gameplay. Cannibalism, drugs, slavery, organ harvesting all have significant upside and downside that work within the gameplay systems. This topic's suggestion is dumb because it adds controversy without adding any gameplay.
Quote from: ymc on May 13, 2017, 11:04:43 AM
Requesting that this thread get locked and buried. Nobody is saying anything new, and it's just going around in a circle resorting to name calling.
Some of the things brought up do have merit, and follow a logical chain:
- Increasing the spread between old and young slave value.
- Beauty / Ugly traits having a modifier on slave value (or increased if they already do?).
- Comparing the slave trade to old-world examples, and showing that typically skilled labour far outweighs "because vagina"
- What about homosexual human sex trafficking?
- Nobody has actually brought up the possibility 3500 years in the future, females might be the ones wanting to purchase hardy breeding males with certain qualities (very rich women will pay a fortune even today for what they believe to be superior sperm).
And some do not:
- "because vagina"
- Slavery isn't profitable enough and I want 5000 silver
- Well you can do x and x is bad so why not this? I wanna do this and who are you to tell me how to play
- Do it for the controversy! Do it for the lols!
Didn't you JUST say a few new things?...cmon. Also you aren't the OP.
Anyway, to address a few things...
-homosexual human trafficking I think would be cheaper : Theres more supply of male slaves, and less homosexuals, So I figure slaves for gay sex would be cheaper, particularly since females would, at least in colonies which breed, would be more protected.
-Females would, again, be an extreme minority when purchasing slaves compared to men, and would perhaps have no problem GETTING said men for free. Think about it : if you are a sugar momma, why would you need to enslave a man to get sex, instead of just paying him a few racks of silver for a bit of sex, if that? Where as women face far more risk in sex, which is why rape / sex slavery is generally directed at women. Even for dominant women, I figure they would steer towards women typically, and again, men are still cheaper, as they are easier to get in many societies.
-On thing to add to the logic chain, is that men and women should have differences. Also your list of points that "don't" are practically strawmen. Good job.
I've split some of the more offtopic discussion in it's own thread if you wish to continue that particular conversation you may do so here (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=32424.0)
Edit (Calahan) - Additionally, please can you all keep the thread on-topic and stick to discussing the merits, or not, of the OP's suggestion. We do not want to see lengthy discussion about off-topic stuff again. If you see someone going off topic then please do not escalate the problem by replying and entering into a discussion. Either report the post for being off-topic, or ignore it, or both. But please do not derail the thread again by replying to off-topic posts. Thank you.