Ludeon Forums

So a big factor people say that makes it so rimworld cant have kids is the aging process because it would take so long to get a working colonist.

My idea however (albeit) unrealistic is to have it like the sims. When they are born they are either just food eating machines that sit in a crib for a year or two and then they would be a teenager, and then another season or two and they would be adults.

Just my idea, would love to see kids in rimworld, would really add to my no-raid farming colonies! :D

I did have a small thought for accelerating the process. We know that humans can be vatgrown from various backstories. So perhaps you could research something that you can stick the lil' brat into and over say, a year, its growth will be accelerated through the use of various hormones or something.

You could run the risk of damaging the colonist/survivor by accelerating its growth or leaving it hopelessly unskilled compared to raising the child yourself which would be intensely time consuming. Just an idea.

I would slightly lower the time needed until the kids become teenagers. So it's after 2 years in game they just become able to do simple tasks like hauling or cleaning. After another year or two they are capable of doing all the stuff. It's little against realism to have 5 years old "adults", but well... this is rimworld :)

Meh, I don't really care too much about the length of time it takes. So long as they provide like a mood buff for nearby colonist ("Look at the fragile innocence, I remember when I was so young and hopeful +5") and a bigger boost to ma' and pa'

And of course they could always age per season, at least when they're kids. We don't know how long a Rimworld season is compared to the time on Earth

Quote from: christhekiller on April 17, 2016, 04:38:18 PM
Meh, I don't really care too much about the length of time it takes. So long as they provide like a mood buff for nearby colonist ("Look at the fragile innocence, I remember when I was so young and hopeful +5") and a bigger boost to ma' and pa'

And of course they could always age per season, at least when they're kids. We don't know how long a Rimworld season is compared to the time on Earth

With all the cannibal colonies, I cant wait for child cannibal colonies to happen. >:D

i don't mind playing a single colony for decades just to see kids grow up. i also don't mind if they have accelerated growth. (maybe a special cryptopod/vat or something like a neurotrainer that allows growth acceleration)

i also think this is closely tied to the way population and threats are "balanced" in this game. coz this is the biggest opposition people seem to have against these kinds of ideas.

but i think the concept of population culling is appropriately tied to population explosion.

culling does not necessarily mean "death by raiders".. it can just be events like widespread plague, and other series of unfortunate events on overdrive, whose purpose is to naturally curb the population explosion rather than superficially imposing a population cap.  (coz superficially lowering recruitment or pregnancy probability is/would be kinda frustrating)

anyways, i digress.

----

rimworld babies makes creation of real families and villages.. bloodlines of inherited skills, traits, and passions. maybe even one day have specialized "professions" possible.

imagine being able to have your own eugenics playground.. lel.

that's probably one of the many possible long-term goals to keep players occupied throughout the late-game.

All these ideas are good but don't really line up well with the current lore. Humans in game age as they do on our planet just with a different way of measuring the date.

I like the idea of a vat-grower, it would let people choose to either have a natural colony with no vat-grown kids, or grow children quickly while damaging them a little because of their rushed childhood.

The best way to make kids useful would be to have them require to be raised for around four years, and then they can start hauling and cleaning until they are in their teens, and then they can start working.

This would stretch the game a little, but chances are you wouldn't really notice children much and they wouldn't have as much of an impact on food and resources as normal adult colonists do. Perhaps children can be taught by the adults if the adults have 10> in a skill, thus you could raise a child to be specialized in one field or many fields instead of having to wait until it's an adult to teach it skills.

Children would not be that horrible of an impact on the colony as many people think. Dwarf Fortress is a good example of how children should be added.

Those colonists try to get away from that planet. Not to build themselves a new permanent home.
So I'd say, having children would be strange in that situation.
Also, every children or adult in the colony who can't use a gun is a burden to the colony, because
they make raids harder without directly contributing to defence measures.
So another reason not to have childrens.
Also, those helpless childs that are dependent on adults weaken the colony further between raids,
because they keep colonists busy to some degree with having them satisfying their needs.
So in my eyes, childrens on the Rimworld are nothing to aim for.
And I doubt that a child would survive for years before it can hold a gun. Even most adult colonists don't grow old...

Quote from: Shabazza on April 19, 2016, 01:48:30 PM
Those colonists try to get away from that planet. Not to build themselves a new permanent home.
So I'd say, having children would be strange in that situation.
Also, every children or adult in the colony who can't use a gun is a burden to the colony, because
they make raids harder without directly contributing to defence measures.
So another reason not to have childrens.
Also, those helpless childs that are dependent on adults weaken the colony further between raids,
because they keep colonists busy to some degree with having them satisfying their needs.
So in my eyes, childrens on the Rimworld are nothing to aim for.
And I doubt that a child would survive for years before it can hold a gun. Even most adult colonists don't grow old...

1) Your colonists are trying to get away from the planet. Mine are perfectly happy where they are. In fact, "building the ship" is commonly viewed as a weird cop-out by many people on this forum.
2) Having children isn't all that weird. There are no contraceptives in Rimworld, and it is already demonstrated that the colonists can have sexual intercourse. In fact, one of my couples has so much sex (almost every night!), that it would be really strange if she didn't get pregnant at least once.
3) One of the beauties of firearms, and one of the reasons firearms became so widely adopted, is because almost anyone can use one, women and children included. Unlike bows or melee weapons, they aren't dependent on physical strength. So long as you can lift the firearm and work the mechanism, you can use a gun.

In Colonial America, children often learned how to use firearms at a very young age, due to the need for hunting and protection.

4) Contrary to popular opinion, children aren't useless until the hit a certain age. One of the reasons rural (and colonial) families would have so many children is so they could have help around the farm. Even very young children can be given chores ( sweep the floor, chop/gather firewood, help bring in crops, etc), and older juveniles/teenagers are functionally adults in all but name.

5) The best part of children is the capability to learn (not that adults can't learn, but what-have-you). Basically, they would start out as a "blank slate", and as they grow older, you could basically mold them into the colonist you need them to be through  training and education. Want a good crafter? Apprentice that kid to your colonies carpenter. blacksmith, weaver, etc. Want a good hunter? Have them follow your hunter around to get some pointers. Want an all-rounded colonist? Actually use those pawns with "teacher" backgrounds, and build a schoolhouse to get an average spread in all skills.

Children, even if they do take years to age, have the potential to add A LOT to the Rimworld experience. Remember, Rimworld is all about telling a story, not how efficient you can make your colony.

For those wondering about how the game will treat kids with regards to slavery, death, etc, just think about the real world, and what you can already do to colonists. Skin them and make clothing from their hides? Why is it OK to do it to adults, but not children? (speaking metaphorically here, I don't find it all that acceptable).Sell them into slavery?

Worse things happened in real-world colonization efforts.

Plus, you know, years pass by pretty fast, now. 4 seasons of 15 days, and each day is only slightly longer than they were in previous Alphas? 60 day years vs 120 day years. Not that long at all. I've played for a couple of hours to notice that a year and a half has blown by.

Eh, I don't care if they take so long to age that they aren't "useful."  Just make having kids a rare thing and/or provide happiness/social interaction benefits.

I can easily imagine kids (having them, raising them) as a source of storyline and social interaction events for your colony and not just a resource to be exploited, you horrible people :P

I'd bet children will never be added to the game, it's probably not worth the trouble.

Hope someone makes a mod.

i think back in the older alphas there were plenty of people saying that relationships will never be added...

hello A13.  :P

the thing with people that says "NOPE you can't have nice things.." is that it's a dead end argument. there's no progress with that. it tastes like games like banished or towns. it feels like aborted evolution.

it's like they just want tynan to finish putting this to steam and move on to something else. which is sad really coz this game still has so much more potential.

this game could exceed games like DF or minecraft. instead of just one of the countless simulation games out there, it could be THE classic simulation game, like the ones your kids would still play decades from now.

so whenever i see suggestions that i think adds more intriguing features, i don't go NOPE that won't work. i usually go.. hmm.. interesting, let's discuss how it could possibly work and hope tynan's listening..  ;D

I feel like kids would sort of ruin the point of the game which is to get of the planet so i can't see it being part of the vanilla game but i can totally see it as a mod for those who like to push the game length out.

Old old post I made. The main gripe people had with it was my proposed "abstract" timescale. However, it is getting more and more apparent that we are already using abstract timescales - a counter argument I never thought to make before. Timescales have always been far to short to belong to a planet that is life-sustaining. The only difference between my proposed timescale and the one the game uses, is that the game tries to hide that is abstract, while mine admits it.

Another idea I was tossing around timescale-wise was a random number of days passing at the end of each day. The idea came while I was watching TV and realized that TV shows, like ones with actual continuous plots, don't worry about playing out the events of each and every moment. Instead of an AI storyteller, they have a screenplay writer who strives to keep things interesting. In good shows you can tell how much time has passed, roughly - sometimes exactly. What does this mean? At the end of the day 1-X amount of days pass, an unobtrusive center screen message pops up showing the date and days passed and fades. Special days (birthdays, anniversaries, memorial days for important events/battles) automatically get selected if the game RNG'd past it. Haven't hammered it all out yet - but there is an alternative to the proposed one below.

This suggestion was from before we had work schedules, or families, ect.

Reproduction is something I've felt could enrich the game considerably. Vat growing children is certainly an option, however I'd like to point out another option that could work concurrently.

##Time and Aging##

Time: Each day could abstractly represent three months, given real life times on construction and production. The length of a day might need adjusting. A 24 hour clock could have somewhere around 30 seconds to a minute being the length of a game hour. Leasure time would fit in here, basically the way it worked in diggles was when you clicked on a dwarf it had a little clock in the corner with two moveable hands. The hands would be manipulated to decide what hour they start work and what hour they end work. During the time they were off the clock, they would build relationships, eat, sleep, and do little fun things.

Aging: Basically there would be eight age categories, each with interesting aspects. The base time is the standard length of time they are in that age group, the extra day is a "late development" factor. For example: Crawlers have a base time of one day. So they will always be in that stage for at least one day. After that day, the game will "roll" with a 25% chance at a second day. If they get that second day, the third day will be rolled with a 15% chance of them getting it; alternatively it could simply be an RNG, where it will just pick a number from one to three.

Aging could look like this:

Infant
-Infants are unable to do anything; they simply stay swaddled on their mother, which precludes the mother from certain activities.
-Base time, two days. One extra day possible at: 25% chance (Alternative: RNG, 1-2)

Crawler
-Crawlers do nothing but get under other colonist's feet.  X% chance of a dwarf tripping over a crawler when passing.
-Base time, one day. Two extra days possible at: 25/15% chances. (Alternative: RNG, 1-3)

Walker
-Walkers tend to wander off from the home-zone, possibly endangering themselves.
-25% chance to do a light hauling task.
-Base time, five days. Four extra days possible at: 25/20/15/10% chances. (Alternative: RNG 5-9)

Talker
-Talkers talk. A lot. X% chance to distract another Colonist from their task.
-50% chance to do a light hauling task.
-Base time, twelve days. Four extra days possible at: 25/20/15/10% chances. (Alternative: RNG, 12-16)

Helper
-Helpers try to emulate the adults. They can do simple tasks like fetching pails of water.
-Can do a light hauling task, and 25% chance to do a medium hauling task.
-Base time, twenty days. Eight extra days possible at: 50/45/40/35/30/25/20/15% chances. (Alternative: RNG, 20-28)

Worker
-Workers start really helping the colony.
-Can do light/medium hauling tasks, and 50% chance to do a heavy hauling task.
-Leave their parent's home.
-Base time, twenty days. Twelve extra day possible at: 75/70/65/60/55/50/45/40/35/30/25/20% Chances. (Alternative: RNG, 20-32)

Breeder
-Able to marry; Each colonist requires a piece of jewelry. There must be an available Private Quarters with a double bed.
-Married Breeders can have children. Pregnancy lasts 3 days.
-Can do light/medium/heavy hauling tasks.
-Become Elders at two hundred days old.

Elder
-No longer work themselves, but instead "Mentor" other colonists, it increases that colonists skill gain and increases production speed. It is much more effective than the "Aid" feature, which allows two colonists to work on a single task to help a less skilled person benefit from a more skilled worker.
-Has a 75%/50%/25% chance to do a light/medium/heavy hauling task.
-After they are 240 days old, they have an acumulative 5% chance per day to pass away.

Maybe your colonists wouldn't want to have kids on such a horrifying planet, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't take (or save in their eyes) any in. Say a slaver comes in and happens to have a kid from one of the local tribes, or an abrasive little brat that an outlander town gave up on... Or say that a couple from a nearby non-hostile faction come in and tell you that they are likely about to die (Sickness, 'old' age, they were told to pack their shit and go raid another colony you made...) and they don't want their kid to suffer so they give them to your (Wealthy obviously, so that they know you can take care of the little leech) colony. So for whatever reason, you just adopted a kid! +15 morality for a season or two!

As for how the kid works, there is already a changing bodysize from teen to adult, makes them less likely to get shot (if we don't just have raiders always kidnap them instead) and can carry less. Give them a trait (Child, -30 global work speed or something) and have it change into a random trait when they turn 14-15. Basic interest in all skills, skill cap somewhere around 8-10. Have the passions change with the Child trait. If we want to shoot for the moon here, they could have a separate social tab, all current colonist +20 Caretaker, and only update the Social effects for other children?

The only question then is if we include them in Fights. If we disable violence for them, we could have raiders not attack them, or it could be a truely awful event if we gave them a gun and they died defending their home... Have them friendly with everyone so they all get the "A friend died" debuff?

I just kinda left a little rant here, but I hope someone likes the idea in the thought.

It isn't that there is no prescedence for death on video game children.  The main part is how it occurs.  In Banished, they die of sickness.  In rimworld, a more viable thing is that in combat, animals will attack whatever.  Raiders would probably have a priority tree.  Shoot threats first, then probably just abduct children which potentially could even show up years later in a raid.

I mean heck, dwarf fortress had far worse in it's engine with things like dragons roasting babies alive.  I remember one playthrough where a dwarf got trapped by accident and I didn't catch.  Gave birth while trapped and died of thirst before could get out.  Poor baby wandered the fortress til died.

In the end, it is to what extent.  No drafting pre-teens and teens can do hunting and combat etc, but not marriage.  If a player doesn't want children, there is another RP option to it.  Make luxury single beds.  Don't let people sleep together.  In reality, that probably wouldn't stop em but from a game mechanics point of view, would do the job. 

i agree with assigning single beds if you don't want your colonists to get preggers. it's a very simple solution that would provide the option of a no-children playthru, while double beds would allow players who wants to have children in their playthru. or better yet, only allow pregnancies for couples assigned to royal beds or something equivalent. this allows couples to still get some lovin without conceiving a child.

this way we all get what we want. and the naysayers have nothing to complain about anymore.

also, if you've seen the poll how people see rimworld if it's for survivors or colonists, majority of players seemed to have chosen colonists. there are also plenty of rimworld players who thinks that spaceships and trying to escape the planet is a waste of time. they just want to build a colony which implies they want to stay on the planet.

that kind of mindset does not impede on the gameplay of people who thinks of rimworld as only for survivors who needs to escape the planet.. by all means, build the spaceship and leave. no one's stopping you.

but don't say to others, NOPE you're not allowed to have kids in your games coz we don't want it and therefore you can't have it.

that's just creepy.

Growth Accelerator Chambers to make them mature within a few years. Basically children can be the second part of the End-game for Rimworld. A parent can refuse to get into the ship without their child unless they are a psychopath or some other relevant trait. So the longer you are on the Rimworld, the harder it will be to build a ship to escape. I imagine this is why there are Outlander towns actually; their populations just grew too large to build an escape vessel.

Quote from: keylocke on April 20, 2016, 07:20:27 AM
better yet, only allow pregnancies for couples assigned to royal beds or something equivalent. this allows couples to still get some lovin without conceiving a child.

Fifty gold for children? I don't even think I can call that pay to win...

Also, spoilers on the poll, it doesn want bias.

Unlike fallout and skyrim where the children look real I dont think they will get any special armor to keep them from harm.

also no matter how shitty life is for people they never stop having kids.  if they did then those 3rd world countries would have died out generations ago.

birth control could be set in the medical tab, "use protection" checkbox so that they dont get kids, only one of the people involved need it to prevent pregnancy.  keep it simple.

Tynan has laid the groundwork for kids, he even said its really simple now that the animals do it.  The trick is that he wants to do it right.  So maybe not for a while.

Lastly, this is in the Frequent suggestions topic.  It gets talked about a lot.  I think I will replace the older thread with this one though. 

Quote from: Shabazza on April 19, 2016, 01:48:30 PM
Those colonists try to get away from that planet. Not to build themselves a new permanent home.
So I'd say, having children would be strange in that situation.
Also, every children or adult in the colony who can't use a gun is a burden to the colony, because
they make raids harder without directly contributing to defence measures.
So another reason not to have childrens.
Also, those helpless childs that are dependent on adults weaken the colony further between raids,
because they keep colonists busy to some degree with having them satisfying their needs.
So in my eyes, childrens on the Rimworld are nothing to aim for.
And I doubt that a child would survive for years before it can hold a gun. Even most adult colonists don't grow old...

If they are colonists why are they trying to leave the planet? Because as far as I know colonizing means building a base and surviving in a foreign area. Your people are survivors, a majority of players have colonists.

They could age with the seasons, like once they are 1 season they are like 1 year old and so on and so fourth but once they reach 15 they have regular birthdays like everyone else.

I still have nightmares due to the things that happened to the child dwarfs during my time playing Dwarf Fortress. I get so much more attached to my RimWorld Pawns than I did with DF. Although watching little Billy grow up for 20 Rimyears only to take an unlucky tribal arrow to the(knee) brain and rendering him braindead would be horribly awesome. But I could look past him being grown in a vat or taking 2-3 Rimyears to mature into an "adult". Then I could just breed an army. Then I could take over the entire RimWorld..... After procedural maps are introduced. That's gonna happen... Right...?

Quote from: Nictis on April 20, 2016, 08:51:20 AM

Quote from: keylocke on April 20, 2016, 07:20:27 AM
better yet, only allow pregnancies for couples assigned to royal beds or something equivalent. this allows couples to still get some lovin without conceiving a child.

Fifty gold for children? I don't even think I can call that pay to win...

Also, spoilers on the poll, it doesn want bias.

you can probably build a single royal bed or whatever (baby making bed) and then rotate the couples assigned there so you can save on resource and be able to choose which couples are gonna have a baby.

Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on April 20, 2016, 09:40:33 AM
Unlike fallout and skyrim where the children look real I dont think they will get any special armor to keep them from harm.

also no matter how shitty life is for people they never stop having kids.  if they did then those 3rd world countries would have died out generations ago.

birth control could be set in the medical tab, "use protection" checkbox so that they dont get kids, only one of the people involved need it to prevent pregnancy.  keep it simple.

Tynan has laid the groundwork for kids, he even said its really simple now that the animals do it.  The trick is that he wants to do it right.  So maybe not for a while.

Lastly, this is in the Frequent suggestions topic.  It gets talked about a lot.  I think I will replace the older thread with this one though. 

ooh.. contraceptives via healthtab. i actually like your idea better than mine.   ;D

We already have too fast growing animals. So why not humans?

Kids is one of those ideas that come far more than they should, it's easy to formulate to the point of overlooking suggesting the game mechanic.

I stand to my previous opinion that it is a false good idea, not just "not worth the trouble" but detrimental to the game, I wish so much to not hear about it ever again that I'm making this wall of text (in vain).


Every features need reasons to be added. Why it would improve the game. "Children because children exist" isn't a good reason.
- Family-relationship is already covered enough, why clutter it with a redundant niche ?
- Child-Raising Simulation basically translate as a new complex entity to macro-manage but with lesser return, and less immediate than animals.
- Also despite some people dream, it can't be relied upon to go beyond +15 colonists without being creepy & inefficient.
As for beyond 50+ colonist, Rimworld isn't balanced for that. Don't hope proposing child as the step toward colonization.

As for the problems with simulating "raising child" the traditional way :
- Even with massive accelerated growth (1rim year = 3human year) child would reach adulthood at years +6 assuming the child was born at the very start.
- During at least 3 out of 6 years you'd have a half-colonist who can't feed, can't work and must be kept away from stoves, knives & gun.
- Yet, the child would need more subtle & complex mechanics than animal breeding (and compete in term of usefulness), all without the simplification that make those easier to deal with.
- Next come its integration with items, structure, background and events... do we need a job for teacher/handler ? Babby bed/bottles ? Kid-napping, ransom from raider ?
And finally the overall balance to allow a colony to sustain the child food/health/mood/training, can it survive all events, is there enough time to educate them ? Can they haul across the map ? Should I skin them to make a hat ?

All in all, the investment and debuff risk is such that it would encourage save-scum if any die, get sick or get captured. This would be a major downgrade in a game where ACCEPTING LOSS is a major game feature. You can survive/replace or profit from the loss of a colonist/animal/equipment during a year, but a child massive mood debuff ? And unless an event give a new one to you, it's 6+ more years to start again.

That's why the "Vatclone chamber" is often bargained as a solution. Even if it still need a reason to exist, it keep pointless and boring part at bay, can be easily balanced, do not require a couple, and the process can be started/avoided anytime.


That's why I would rather have Tynan work on new stuff with much greater return and potential (like inter-colony diplomacy, more events, themed storyteller, low tech).

ps : This is what the whole idea make me think about (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7GAtSIy4-w)

Quote from: Kegereneku on April 21, 2016, 03:42:41 PM
Kids is one of those ideas that come far more than they should, it's easy to formulate to the point of overlooking suggesting the game mechanic.

I stand to my previous opinion that it is a false good idea, not just "not worth the trouble" but detrimental to the game, I wish so much to not hear about it ever again that I'm making this wall of text (in vain).


Every features need reasons to be added. Why it would improve the game. "Children because children exist" isn't a good reason.
- Family-relationship is already covered enough, why clutter it with a redundant niche ?
- Child-Raising Simulation basically translate as a new complex entity to macro-manage but with lesser return, and less immediate than animals.
- Also despite some people dream, it can't be relied upon to go beyond +15 colonists without being creepy & inefficient.
As for beyond 50+ colonist, Rimworld isn't balanced for that. Don't hope proposing child as the step toward colonization.

As for the problems with simulating "raising child" the traditional way :
- Even with massive accelerated growth (1rim year = 3human year) child would reach adulthood at years +6 assuming the child was born at the very start.
- During at least 3 out of 6 years you'd have a half-colonist who can't feed, can't work and must be kept away from stoves, knives & gun.
- Yet, the child would need more subtle & complex mechanics than animal breeding (and compete in term of usefulness), all without the simplification that make those easier to deal with.
- Next come its integration with items, structure, background and events... do we need a job for teacher/handler ? Babby bed/bottles ? Kid-napping, ransom from raider ?
And finally the overall balance to allow a colony to sustain the child food/health/mood/training, can it survive all events, is there enough time to educate them ? Can they haul across the map ? Should I skin them to make a hat ?

All in all, the investment and debuff risk is such that it would encourage save-scum if any die, get sick or get captured. This would be a major downgrade in a game where ACCEPTING LOSS is a major game feature. You can survive/replace or profit from the loss of a colonist/animal/equipment during a year, but a child massive mood debuff ? And unless an event give a new one to you, it's 6+ more years to start again.

That's why the "Vatclone chamber" is often bargained as a solution. Even if it still need a reason to exist, it keep pointless and boring part at bay, can be easily balanced, do not require a couple, and the process can be started/avoided anytime.


That's why I would rather have Tynan work on new stuff with much greater return and potential (like inter-colony diplomacy, more events, themed storyteller, low tech).

ps : This is what the whole idea make me think about (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7GAtSIy4-w)

how is have 15 or more colonists creepy or inefficient?
and also children as they age could do small "chores" like cleaning or growing etc.
and 6 years or so to raise a child? good enough for me. My longest game was like 15 years or something because all I ever do is just make farming colonies.
and how is it detrimental to the game? It could be another way to lose an entire colony because a child died and the parents where so distraught they went berserk and killed everyone.

Tynan needs to do a poll,if less than ~50% want kids he should make it a toggle option for people who want kids.

Quote from: Boston on April 19, 2016, 02:18:34 PM
1) Your colonists are trying to get away from the planet. Mine are perfectly happy where they are. In fact, "building the ship" is commonly viewed as a weird cop-out by many people on this forum.

I was referencing the RimWorld lore here. I for myself never ever tried to build that spacecraft to escape.
I like to build my colony to see how long I can survive in harsh environments - like most people here, I guess.  ;)

Quote from: Tatte on April 21, 2016, 04:06:50 PM
how is have 15 or more colonists creepy or inefficient?
and also children as they age could do small "chores" like cleaning or growing etc.
and 6 years or so to raise a child? good enough for me. My longest game was like 15 years or something because all I ever do is just make farming colonies.
and how is it detrimental to the game? It could be another way to lose an entire colony because a child died and the parents where so distraught they went berserk and killed everyone.

Tynan needs to do a poll,if less than ~50% want kids he should make it a toggle option for people who want kids.

In order :
"how is have 15 or more colonists creepy or inefficient? "
I mean that at best you could only get 1 or 2 child before it start looking like a unrealistic creepy breeding camp.

Your LONGEST game (ever) was 15 years ? That's the problem.
My calculation were done with very optimistic assumption. If I take my last game as example :
2 Years to get a colony that can support them.
0-2 years to get compatible lover.
let's give 0-1 years for them to decide to get busy (they aren't automated child-factory after all).
3 month of pregnancy (divided by 3)
3 years where the child (0 to 8years) can't be expected to work on anything.
3 years where he can only do basic things from level 0.

So 7 to 9rim year to get an "16y adult" that have a lot of 0 skill and especially shouldn't have any in research & construction skills due to lack of real education (unless you have a Neuro-trainer handy to start at 0). During that time you could recruit dozens of raiders with better stats. (btw : myself I don't want to be forced to play more than 10rim years before changing biomes or playstyles)

#"and how is it detrimental to the game?"
- It would have all the problems of a colonist with half its interest. Notice how animal can be left alone entirely and don't even suffer some Events ? Kid would require more macro-management (meaning more pause, slower game)
- It would be redundant. Just to get social-interaction that can't be much different than what we have now. Unless you make kids a "MOOD NUKE" capable of destroying or immunizing colony entirely.
- Speaking of Balance, it would force the game into being easier overall (easier food, easier health, easier predator, easier weather, less raids) to not frustrate adult in loosing the 6y-old kid.
- Kid would be even more Luck-based than any other mechanic. If it can take a year just to get both a trader & silvers, it will take 6-10 years to fully raise a kid.
- WASTED DEVELOPMENT TIME. For all the time used to integrate kids (a feature not expected to be used by everyone), balance it, make sure no (current) interactions are unbalanced (berserk vs child)...etc. You could (say) RIDE ANIMAL, RIDE VEHICLE, have DIPLOMACY with faction. New events, new Storytellers, low-tech survival without electricity ...etc

QuoteTynan needs to do a poll,if less than ~50% want kids he should make it a toggle option for people who want kids.

If only it was that simple...
I remember that someone explained somewhere why Polls are unreliable without(and even with) professional to make it.
No easy choices can account for those who just don't want it before many other features, those who want to teach the kid, those who want random skills, those who want Rimworld balanced to raise 6+ at once into 50+ city, those who only want kid if they can fight, those who want to raise them FAST (say 4 years) and those who would feel cheated if less than 6years, those who want kids to replace Raider-recruit...etc

And there's that bias where everybody chose as if the question had only been "Do you want MORE FUN ? [Y/N]" leaving Tynan to choose.

Quote from: Kegereneku on April 22, 2016, 05:23:45 PM

Quote from: Tatte on April 21, 2016, 04:06:50 PM
how is have 15 or more colonists creepy or inefficient?
and also children as they age could do small "chores" like cleaning or growing etc.
and 6 years or so to raise a child? good enough for me. My longest game was like 15 years or something because all I ever do is just make farming colonies.
and how is it detrimental to the game? It could be another way to lose an entire colony because a child died and the parents where so distraught they went berserk and killed everyone.

Tynan needs to do a poll,if less than ~50% want kids he should make it a toggle option for people who want kids.

In order :
"how is have 15 or more colonists creepy or inefficient? "
I mean that at best you could only get 1 or 2 child before it start looking like a unrealistic creepy breeding camp.

Your LONGEST game (ever) was 15 years ? That's the problem.
My calculation were done with very optimistic assumption. If I take my last game as example :
2 Years to get a colony that can support them.
0-2 years to get compatible lover.
let's give 0-1 years for them to decide to get busy (they aren't automated child-factory after all).
3 month of pregnancy (divided by 3)
3 years where the child (0 to 8years) can't be expected to work on anything.
3 years where he can only do basic things from level 0.

So 7 to 9rim year to get an "16y adult" that have a lot of 0 skill and especially shouldn't have any in research & construction skills due to lack of real education (unless you have a Neuro-trainer handy to start at 0). During that time you could recruit dozens of raiders with better stats. (btw : myself I don't want to be forced to play more than 10rim years before changing biomes or playstyles)

#"and how is it detrimental to the game?"
- It would have all the problems of a colonist with half its interest. Notice how animal can be left alone entirely and don't even suffer some Events ? Kid would require more macro-management (meaning more pause, slower game)
- It would be redundant. Just to get social-interaction that can't be much different than what we have now. Unless you make kids a "MOOD NUKE" capable of destroying or immunizing colony entirely.
- Speaking of Balance, it would force the game into being easier overall (easier food, easier health, easier predator, easier weather, less raids) to not frustrate adult in loosing the 6y-old kid.
- Kid would be even more Luck-based than any other mechanic. If it can take a year just to get both a trader & silvers, it will take 6-10 years to fully raise a kid.
- WASTED DEVELOPMENT TIME. For all the time used to integrate kids (a feature not expected to be used by everyone), balance it, make sure no (current) interactions are unbalanced (berserk vs child)...etc. You could (say) RIDE ANIMAL, RIDE VEHICLE, have DIPLOMACY with faction. New events, new Storytellers, low-tech survival without electricity ...etc

QuoteTynan needs to do a poll,if less than ~50% want kids he should make it a toggle option for people who want kids.

If only it was that simple...
I remember that someone explained somewhere why Polls are unreliable without(and even with) professional to make it.
No easy choices can account for those who just don't want it before many other features, those who want to teach the kid, those who want random skills, those who want Rimworld balanced to raise 6+ at once into 50+ city, those who only want kid if they can fight, those who want to raise them FAST (say 4 years) and those who would feel cheated if less than 6years, those who want kids to replace Raider-recruit...etc

And there's that bias where everybody chose as if the question had only been "Do you want MORE FUN ? [Y/N]" leaving Tynan to choose.

You gotta remember though people can have more than one child, say twins, or the most was, what, octuplets?
And he could also make it have options: How fast it takes to raise, what skills they can do at a certian age, etc
Or have kids as a free add-on/dlc

ugh.. did anyone say : "tynan, stop whatever it is that you're doing and add kids in rimworld NOW!!"

nope? haha. lol. why do people keep raising that red flag?

so far what i've read are just people discussing HOW to implement kids in rimworld. and yea, i was there several alphas back discussing how to add kids in rimworld, the same time that i was also there discussing how to add pets in rimworld, and yea i was also there discussing how to add relationships in rimworld.. talking to similar people who made very loud conclusions why they think those features should NEVER be added to rimworld.. lel.  :P

sure there might be an imbalance initially in implementing new features, but that's exactly what people here are talking about. HOW to make such a feature work WITHOUT BREAKING THE GAME.

meanwhile here are the summary of reasons of people that keeps saying NOPE, no kids in rimworld. period :

1) it takes too long for kids to grow.

answer : increased growth rate whether using vats, growth hormone injections, or just allow kids to grow fast like pet animals.. (i prefer vat and growth hormones since it's more lore friendly) people have also suggested that kids can incrementally unlock new skills as they grow, like how puppies can only have limited training compared to adults.

2) players can recruit more immigrants faster than waiting for kids to grow.

answer : sure you can. no one's trying to stop you. for me the purpose of kids isn't just about increasing population, it's about having more long term goals during the late game when there's nothing much to do other than faffing around.

3) it doesn't add anything to the game.

answer : that's your opinion, not a fact. i could argue that majority of the game is irrelevant since all you gotta do is actually build a ship to end your game. why the heck would you raise a pet, have relationships, craft art, etc.. just to leave the planet? there's so many ways to get money and resources without wasting time on all that.

4) other features need to be implemented first.

answer : true, this is probably the only point the seemed valid.  ;D

Quote from: keylocke on April 22, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
ugh.. did anyone say : "tynan, stop whatever it is that you're doing and add kids in rimworld NOW!!"

nope? haha. lol. why do people keep raising that red flag?

so far what i've read are just people discussing HOW to implement kids in rimworld. and yea, i was there several alphas back discussing how to add kids in rimworld, the same time that i was also there discussing how to add pets in rimworld, and yea i was also there discussing how to add relationships in rimworld.. talking to similar people who made very loud conclusions why they think those features should NEVER be added to rimworld.. lel.  :P

sure there might be an imbalance initially in implementing new features, but that's exactly what people here are talking about. HOW to make such a feature work WITHOUT BREAKING THE GAME.

meanwhile here are the summary of reasons of people that keeps saying NOPE, no kids in rimworld. period :

1) it takes too long for kids to grow.

answer : increased growth rate whether using vats, growth hormone injections, or just allow kids to grow fast like pet animals.. (i prefer vat and growth hormones since it's more lore friendly) people have also suggested that kids can incrementally unlock new skills as they grow, like how puppies can only have limited training compared to adults.

2) players can recruit more immigrants faster than waiting for kids to grow.

answer : sure you can. no one's trying to stop you. for me the purpose of kids isn't just about increasing population, it's about having more long term goals during the late game when there's nothing much to do other than faffing around.

3) it doesn't add anything to the game.

answer : that's your opinion, not a fact. i could argue that majority of the game is irrelevant since all you gotta do is actually build a ship to end your game. why the heck would you raise a pet, have relationships, craft art, etc.. just to leave the planet? there's so many ways to get money and resources without wasting time on all that.

4) other features need to be implemented first.

answer : true, this is probably the only point the seemed valid.  ;D

Completely agree!

Quote from: Tatte on April 22, 2016, 05:35:08 PM
You gotta remember though people can have more than one child, say twins, or the most was, what, octuplets?
And he could also make it have options: How fast it takes to raise, what skills they can do at a certian age, etc
Or have kids as a free add-on/dlc

Great...more childrens to keep valuable colonists busy with raising and training them.

Keylocke,
We keep bringing those red flag because some people don't actually address them and keep on unsubstantiated hope that "Tynan will work it out if we insist".

The problems are still here :
1) it takes too long for kids to grow. You can't "raise" them without absurdly fast growth, hence the vat-chamber to do 90% of the job, at which point you might as well skip the child part and work on vat-grow mechanic.
2) players can recruit more immigrants faster than waiting for kids to grow. waiting for kids to grow naturally imply many considerable change and hurdle in gameplay that are ultimately pointless, especially if we gain more way to recruit.
3) it doesn't add anything to the game. It is a NICHE features that force in redundant mechanic while impeding the inclusion of anything else, just for a negligible added value that will be drown within SOCIAL, FAMILY (+ betterTRADING, DIPLOMACY & RELIGION ?) you could even improve PRISONERS relations and add more Psychic-feature.
4) other features need to be implemented first. Kids doesn't need to be implemented at all. You could keep the game without kids indefinitely it would work just fine (and in fact BETTER as explained). Just like we aren't missing poop-simulation, realistic-hauling, realistic-industry (best left alone for mods).
5) ... etc

That's my cue to stop bumping the topic myself. Of course it will keep reappearing I'm just hoping some people will actually address the problems to overcome.

Edit : Now that I think about it, animal's poop/Manure to create fertile soil would actually be more interesting than kid.

Quote from: Kegereneku on April 23, 2016, 06:28:53 AM
Keylocke,
We keep bringing those red flag because some people don't actually address them and keep on unsubstantiated hope that "Tynan will work it out if we insist".

The problems are still here :
1) it takes too long for kids to grow.

2) players can recruit more immigrants faster than waiting for kids to grow. waiting for kids to grow naturally imply many considerable change and hurdle in gameplay that are ultimately pointless, especially if we gain more way to recruit.
3) it doesn't add anything to the game. It is a NICHE features that force in redundant mechanic while impeding the inclusion of anything else, just for a negligible added value that will be drown within SOCIAL, FAMILY (+ betterTRADING, DIPLOMACY & RELIGION ?) you could even improve PRISONERS relations and add more Psychic-feature.
4) other features need to be implemented first. Kids doesn't need to be implemented at all. You could keep the game without kids indefinitely it would work just fine (and in fact BETTER as explained). Just like we aren't missing poop-simulation, realistic-hauling, realistic-industry (best left alone for mods).
5) ... etc

That's my cue to stop bumping the topic myself. Of course it will keep reappearing I'm just hoping some people will actually address the problems to overcome.

Edit : Now that I think about it, animal's poop/Manure to create fertile soil would actually be more interesting than kid.

1) You can't "raise" them without absurdly fast growth, hence the vat-chamber to do 90% of the job, at which point you might as well skip the child part and work on vat-grow mechanic.

vat grown should be optional, the same way that raising kids normally should be optional. WHY raise kids slowly the normal way? easy. why keep a "useless" yorkshire terrier other than for mood buffs?

having both vat grown/growth hormones and normal growth gives versatility for players who wants to keep kids in their colony for mood buffs or when they want they want to allow certain couples to breed and hopefully pass on their useful traits to their kids instead of just RNG immigration traits..

ie : you want more cannibal colonists? if you have a cannibal in a relationship, then allowing him/her to breed can give you a higher chance to get a new pawn with the cannibal trait.

2) waiting for kids to grow naturally imply many considerable change and hurdle in gameplay that are ultimately pointless, especially if we gain more way to recruit.

again, kids isn't just about increasing the population. it's a good way to breed certain traits instead of just waiting for the RNG gods to drop you the colonist you want/need. kids can also give mood buffs. and having kids makes population growth more organic instead of just via immigration.

WHY do i hope population growth becomes more organic? coz late game can get boring as frak. population fluctuations via birth and culling would make things interesting by breaking the monotony.

3) It is a NICHE features that force in redundant mechanic while impeding the inclusion of anything else, just for a negligible added value that will be drown within SOCIAL, FAMILY (+ betterTRADING, DIPLOMACY & RELIGION ?) you could even improve PRISONERS relations and add more Psychic-feature.

basically your argument revolves around : "there are features i wanna get implemented first that i think are more important than kids in rimworld, therefore NOPE i must shoot down your suggestions coz you will never have nice things until i get MY nice things implemented first"... lel.  :P

to reiterate my point of view : we are simply discussing HOW having kids in rimworld could work. we're not saying it needs to be implemented now, we just wanna keep the option open.

-----------------------

honestly, i think tynan can probably stop developing now, since he already implemented the spaceship. everything else is just irrelevant manure.

so no more nice things for everybody. we're just faffing around.  :P

Don't act as if you were persecuted.
I simply explained problems you will have to solve to make it interesting/work at all.
Free to you to ignore others opinions, but explaining how you personally want it to work don't make it possible or interesting for others.

If those were your true goals, there's much better suggestions for trait-control than "child raising", same for breaking late-game monotony. So don't go accusing me shooting-down idea when I've shown more consideration for others and gave more alternative than you.

persecuted? nah. i'm just summarizing the things that you said.

but i agree, putting kids in rimworld requires solving tons of issues. the biggest issue i actually see is generating the background traits.

if kids are born in the same colony, this means they'd be sharing similar background traits which would give them generic stats compared to immigrants. unless more "colony-based" backgrounds are created based on their inherited traits like :

-these are just samples :

-colony bully : born with an abrasive trait, X grew up blah blah blah.. as a result X became adept in melee combat. (trait based)
-child of a hunter : born and raised by a hunter parent, X grew up blah blah blah.. as a result X became good at hunting animals for a living. (parent based)
-silver spoon : born in a very rich colony, X grew up everything it needs blah blah blah... as a result, X is incapable of a lot of things.. (colony stat based on wealth)
-colony warchild :born in a colony that have seen plenty of deaths from both raiders and colonists alike, X grew up desensitized by all the violence, blah blah blah.. as a result X is incapable of social, and uncaring.. (colony stat based on kills)
-etc.. imagination is the only real limit.

------

these background traits will only be obtained by the child as soon as they transition towards an adult.

which means that there are 2 things that kids can have that immigrants don't.

1) being able to breed traits by choosing which couples are allowed to procreate.

2) the way you run your colony can have an effect in the kid's upbringing.

------

this gives players a viable long term goal in the late game. it also adds to the drama and the story
of how you play the colony and how it reflects the kids that you raise.

you want good natured kids? then don't abuse your prisoners, don't let your kids get damaged through violence..

you want battle-scarred psychologically damaged kids? then let the kids get mauled by raiders and wild animals..

the kids you raise will reflect HOW you play the colony. they are not merely recruits and mood buffs. kids are a long term goal.

--------------------

edit : i'm writing this as i go along so here's to sum it up :

1) traits and passions : mostly inherited from parents and a bit of RNG.

2) young background trait : reflects your colony stats during the birth of the child

3) adult background trait : reflects your colony stats + the child's experience (ie : did they get damaged often? did they starve often? do they live in a beautiful and clean place?, are their parents still married or divorced? what are the events they experienced? volcanic winter? radioactive fallout?  did you use vat or growth hormones to force them to age? etc..)

so basically, how you play the game reflects on how your kids are gonna grow up. it also means that forcing your kid to grow via vat or growth hormones will also affect their background trait as compared to just letting them grow naturally.

Kids should happen. i know a lot think the game is about getting off the rim world and maybe when there wasn't much content it could have been. i have seen a lot of content added in that helps provide a lot of story. kids would add to this. you could easily force them to a zone inside why not. whats the point of having lots of story when the goal is to leave? i think this game was supposed to be like DF and if it wasn't well then thats why i play. i usually plan to play my colonies forever. no leaving the rim world why would i want to leave? i'll just quit playing if i didn't want to continue the simulation. the more story they can add to the game the better. maybe have an option or a specific bed type to enable or disable human breeding. i don't know how it would work really. it may be a while until the dev comes up with a good way. i definitely don't think kids should be dismissed.

I don't think kids have to be a resource. They can be one more interesting problem to deal with. They would add some happiness and bonding, but would be otherwise helpless and need protection: and their death would fuck up your colonists mood big time.

TL;DR: Adding young children or babies to the game would bring alot of new ways to play the game.

In my oppinion it would bring lots of flavour to the game simply by having a small child to look after, add in a few mood effects and a "parrent instinct script" and you have the perfect objective for hours of gameplay. "Protect the baby"

I have to agree that the aging should be accelerated, but in my oppinion just having a small ball of cuteness would be really cool and add the kind of lategame objectives that currently seem a bit repettative.

Imagine having a colony of 8 and suddenly you have to protect a pregnant lady or a child brought with a parent that you bought of a slave-trader. The pregnancy thing might be a bit hard to balance so i would mostly recommend just having young children or babies. They could come on
"Bring you children on a raid day" or together with their slave-parent at an extra or reduced cost. (depending on how you want to balance it, should a child be a burden or an extra way of keeping colonists happy)

These are just my thoughts on the subject, it is possible to also just make a mod that adds this and have it as a mod that comes with the game. (think there should be atleast a few of these, just for variety, but that's a subject for another post)

Anyone who supports this idea??? ?

Vatgrown people would work.

There was a mod where you could break down corpses in an organ vat to make biomaterial that you could then use to grow regular organs for transplant. What if you could use that biomaterial in a some sort of human cloning tube.
It would be like a production building with a number of recipes. Cloning, Vatgrown Medic, Vatgrown Assassin, Vatgrown Soldier and the other one.

Cloning would recreate a dead colonist. I'm not too sure it's a good idea as it would water down that feeling of loss when your favourite colonist gets his head blown off. Perhaps it could be really expensive and recreates them as they were when you started the colony? Maybe they'll get a massive debuff that lasts a couple years at the idea of being clone. Maybe other colonists would dislike them for a while, thinking how can this clone replace the original.
Vatgrowing a colonist would give you a fresh pawn with whichever vatgrown background you picked in the recipe. It would just create a pawn with that childhood background and then maybe the colony settler adulthood background. Then appearance and traits could be randomised?

So now you can grind up the bodies of those annoying tribals and use them to grow artificial supersoldiers.

I've got a few ideas to keep things balanced:
- High biomaterial cost, since everything has to be grown and not all of a mangled raider body is useable
- Long creation time, maybe taking a season to two to create? This would be annoying as a power cut or solar flare would kill the growing colonist and you would have to redo it from the beginning with new biomaterial
- High power consumption
- 25% chance of the vatgrown going completely berserk when they're created. They'll pop out of the chamber immediately hostile to everyone. This could happen to clones, too. Which is doubly tragic as not only did you have to watch your favourite colonist die the first time around but now you have to order his clone killed. And then ground back up so you can try again.

I don't know how to do this but I think the systems are already there in the game. It seems like it would be possible. You just wouldn't be able to completely customise them.

I find it pretty gamebreaking that i can't make children in a game that's all about surviving and expanding your colony. I wasn't hoping there would be kids, as a DF clone i was expecting it to be there already.

Don't get me started on the space ship and pods, here you are surviving with the most basic equipment and suddenly fancy space ship debris starts dropping all over, i would rather start as a homeless child or something that's actually closer to reality. I don't want to be able to end my game, the game ends when my colony dies, period.

I understand not everyone wants this which is why we should be able to tailor our own ending if any at all.

I love the game to bits though and i understand we're still in alpha.

Or we could just make the colonists unaffected by age. But that, i guess, is a step back :P

Calm it down people.  The system for traditional reproduction is there just not fully enabled for humans because Tynan wants to do it right.  He has stated himself that it would be simple at this point but he doesnt want to rush anything. 

I talked about vat growing people a long while ago and still think its a good alternate system that should come with its own drawbacks and bonuses.  I think what we should focus on is ALL the potential ideas so that whenever Tynan feels like getting into it he can read this and find helpful ideas.  NOT arguments and unhelpful criticisms. 

I feel that there should be a higher  chance of people rebelling or acting as spies for enemies, Trust stat should be introduced into the game to go along with kids, that way it add more benefits to having kids with 100% trust into colony and not betraying it.

More about children being added into the game, i feel that i wouldn't mind them but i'd prefer for developers to work on other parts of the game.

This would just take too much time if they are going to work on different kinds of breeding/growing children.. Just feels like a waste of time, it would be nice to  have but its more trouble then worth.

Children growing should be around 4-6 years at most i think, it just  doesn't feel right to waste food and other  colonists time on them otherwise, +5 mood boost to everyone in the colony and +15 for parents. (It would not be nice if everyone got a big mood boost, as kids grow for a long time) They would inherit traits of their parents, and maybe even add them a forth trait to make it even more viable for people to get kids and colonist with good traits to reproduce.

My first post in like 2  years, was browsing the  forums, as i usually lurk but oh well, gotta make the  first step someday..

EDIT:
I didn't write all i wanted, so i decided to edit, anyway i feel that this is too big of an update if most of the good suggestions about kids get implemented it would take as much time as a whole new version of the game.

I feel that training them with colonist would be a good thing, 10,16,20 in art for example should give different experience to the kid, if a guy who's at 20 in art, he should give much more exp.

I feel that it could be nice if traits were changed to work with kids, that way grandparents traits could get inherited, and whole family from mother's side should have similar traits same for father's side.
Now in the game you can see a father of a colonist with 3 completely random traits/different from the son.

*bump*  ::)

This topic keeps coming up because a lot of players would like to have it in the game. I don't understand why some people are so averse to it - but it should at least be an option for those who do like the idea of raising families. Breeding animals is a thing, so why not colonists?

I personally have been looking forward to it being added for a long time and was excited to see Tynan add relationships and other family connections to the last version. Rimworld is the closest thing I've found to the complexity of Dwarf Fortress at least in the sense of the random storyteller AI and management system.

Dwarf Fortress has children and it's often annoying, often hilarious, but it adds another layer of interesting interactions and conditions to the base/city management to consider as part of your strategy.

My suggestion is have this be something that's entirely managed by the player's decision. Just as in real life, if you don't want kids, you take measures to prevent it. Easy solution for all those who don't want it in their game.

I also think that kids would add a lot to story telling and overal experience. Of course some of you would like to escape the planet with your colonists etc., but hey - what with the tribe scenario? What sense is there in establishing a tribe without being able to reproduce? And although I am new to the game I have a feeling that there is a big chance that initial tribe members are related to each other - either brother/sister or parent/child bond - but there is also wife/husband relationship. What point there is in not having kits then?