Shouldn't show relationships unless both people have been seen RE: cyro temple

[Mikhail Reign]

I just had a little bit of flavor ruined. I had a visit from a one of the friendly colony's, and the game promptly told me that one of the visitors was engaged to a Spacer in a yet unopened (a 'officially' undiscovered) cyro temple (cant remember the full name - I'd dug around it, but yet to open the room). By going to the visitors social tab, I was able to then click the Spacers name, have it tell me that the people inside the temple were Hostile (and not mechs), see where his cyro box was and even some of his details.

A: I dont think temple/tomb pawns should be included in the relationships like that
B: I dont think that the game should give me as many details as it does from the social tab.

[mumblemumble]

I think the only issue is it revealing hidden rooms,  everything else is fine

[Mikhail Reign]

I think the only issue is it revealing hidden rooms,  everything else is fine

Yeah.... but when you break Spacers in particular out of cyro they all generally have really long cyro times heavily implying that the vast majority of their cyro time was in that hidden room. Doesn't make sense that tha so-and-so from down the road with 3 years cyro time would even know them.

[mumblemumble]

Maybe,  maybe not.

I think math ranges for matching times being pheasable would be a good idea,  but it should still be possible.

[Mikhail Reign]

Maybe,  maybe not.

I think math ranges for matching times being pheasable would be a good idea,  but it should still be possible.

Huh?

[mumblemumble]

As in if someone in the temple is 20, chronologically 1000, maybe having a brother who is 22 but chronologically 22 shouldn't happen,  assuming the ruins have been there several decades.

Otherwise,  i see no reason there shouldn't be relationships,  at least family wise with tomb people.

[Mikhail Reign]

As in if someone in the temple is 20, chronologically 1000, maybe having a brother who is 22 but chronologically 22 shouldn't happen,  assuming the ruins have been there several decades.

Otherwise,  i see no reason there shouldn't be relationships,  at least family wise with tomb people.

That is the exact circumstances I'm talking about.

[StorymasterQ]

So, family relationships should take account of chronological ages instead. That should be doable, right?

[Mikhail Reign]

Well that guy could have been put in the temple the day before my colonists landed - its just that the lore and circumstantial evidence is pointing in the direction that they have been their for a LONG time. It seems unlikely that anyone that you pull out of a temple would have any relatives on world that were still alive.

Thats why I suggest that temple pawns are exempt from the relationship jargen except for pawns that come from off world, or other pawns in the temple.

[JonoRig]

Maybe just block relationship info of colonists in tombs, like strangers, they don't exist until discovered to the player, so why not just rng those relationships when the casket is cracked open, or limit their relationships to the other pawns also present in the tomb.

I think it's more of a development oversight then an actual choice, it's the first outing for social in the game, like all new features, it'll have kinks that need to be worked out