Oldest chronological age you've seen?

Started by Chipotle, April 12, 2016, 09:38:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


The oldest one I've ever seen was a fugitive named Narda.  She was 3258


Quote from: Chipotle on April 12, 2016, 09:38:21 PM
The oldest one I've ever seen was a fugitive named Narda.  She was 3258

Wow. The highest I think I saw was 1400ish.


Are you sure you don't mean chronological? Biological means physical age,  so 1k years would be like a mummy...

I've never seen anyone over 100, and i think anyone at 1k years would either be transhuman,  or so old they were extremely frail / running on a machine.
Why to people worry about following their heart? Its lodged in your chest, you won't accidentally leave it behind.


Its bad because reasons, and if you don't know the reasons, you are horrible. You cannot ask what the reasons are or else you doubt it. But the reasons are irrefutable. Logic.


Never seen anyone over one hundred, I don't know if there is an upper limit for how old a colonist can be before they'd die of "old age".

This is the oldest colonist I've managed to roll - https://imgur.com/ailYniD

And yeah, the age in brackets is the chronological age. This is because of things like cryosleep that stop the ageing process, therefore that value has to always be equal to or greater than their biological age.


I think there was a tread some time ago where someone posted something about a colonist being 3400+ y.o., which, given that the game takes place in the year 5500 meant that the colonist was probably born within possible lifespan of an average Rimworld fan :D


I've gotten 101 for Biological, I think Chronological was around 1700.
Life is Strange


Oops I meant chronological oyiyoyiyoyoyyi


Doesn't the game take place in 3500 CE? If colonists can be more than 1000 years old, doesn't that start to imply that, in the story, Earth isn't our home planet?

Maybe that's the point.

I think the oldest I noticed was 985 or so.


game takes place in 5500...if the chronological age goes past 3484, we have consistency issues :p


There's no consitency issue with people being frozen for that long, people have been stored in cryogenics in our past.  The only consitency issue would be before the last ice age.  Granted the viability of being frozen outside of cryogenics would be near 0 though.

(2*b)||!(2*b) - That is the question.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Powered By