Bay 12 Games Forum
Dwarf Fortress => DF Modding => Topic started by: Dame de la Licorne on July 23, 2014, 11:20:51 am
-
Hiya,
So after reading the wiki, I added the following to my dwarves to make them strictly heterosexual and genned a new world:
[CASTE:FEMALE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:100]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:100:0:0]
[CASTE:MALE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:100:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:100]
However, two years into my attempt at a generational fort, none of my single dwarves have acquired lovers, let alone got married. Did I do something wrong?
-Dame de la Licorne
-
MALE/FEMALE:disinterested chance:lover-possible chance:commitment-possible chance
need the middle value too so you want:
[CASTE:FEMALE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:0:50:100]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:100:0:0]
[CASTE:MALE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:100:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:50:100]
can't get married if you don't fall in love
-
I'm not sure if that is true, at least according to the wiki thats not how it seems.
The middle number is romantic interest without marriage.
-
in DF love interest is needed before they get married.
no love interest (the lacking middle number) no way to form commitment
-
Pretty sure Toady said somewhere that the middle number wasn't necessary. An interest in marriage also meant an interest in lovers but an interest in lovers did not mean an interest in marriage.
-
Hmmm, then the wiki should be updated. It implies that a single roll is made and a dwarf is either disinterested, romantically interested, or commitedly interested. And that there is no overlap.
-
Hiya,
Pretty sure Toady said somewhere that the middle number wasn't necessary. An interest in marriage also meant an interest in lovers but an interest in lovers did not mean an interest in marriage.
That was my impression, but then why are none of my single dwarves getting romantic relationships? (They all have appropriate age-mates.)
-Dame de la Licorne
-
Hmmm, then the wiki should be updated. It implies that a single roll is made and a dwarf is either disinterested, romantically interested, or commitedly interested. And that there is no overlap.
... You seem to be misunderstanding something somewhere. The interest level is more in the nature of how far the dwarf is willing to go in a relationship with disinterest being not entering one, romantically interested being taking a lover, and commitedly interested being willing to eventually marry a lover.
Hiya,
Pretty sure Toady said somewhere that the middle number wasn't necessary. An interest in marriage also meant an interest in lovers but an interest in lovers did not mean an interest in marriage.
That was my impression, but then why are none of my single dwarves getting romantic relationships? (They all have appropriate age-mates.)
-Dame de la Licorne
I know Toady stated somewhere that the numbers in the orientation tag aren't percentages meaning Hugo's suggestions actually mean that there is a 2 in 3 chance of your dwarf being interested in marriage and a 1 in 3 chance of them not wanting to get married.
What about the other conditions? Have your dwarfs had any sort of idle time? Is there a meeting area, statue garden, well, or dining room in your fort? If your dwarfs aren't socializing their relationships won't progress.
-
They add up to 100 in the default, but they aren't percentages.
-
Hmmm, then the wiki should be updated. It implies that a single roll is made and a dwarf is either disinterested, romantically interested, or commitedly interested. And that there is no overlap.
... You seem to be misunderstanding something somewhere. The interest level is more in the nature of how far the dwarf is willing to go in a relationship with disinterest being not entering one, romantically interested being taking a lover, and commitedly interested being willing to eventually marry a lover.
Like I said, the wiki should be updated then, it states clearly that a roll is made and a dwarf will fall somewhere in one of the three categories.
A one-time check is made for each creature to determine orientation, by "rolling a die" once for each sex, against the total of the three chances for that sex. If a given dwarf rolls "disinterested" for the same sex, and "commitment-possible" for the opposite sex, then that dwarf is strictly heterosexual, and is willing to become married. If the dwarf rolls "lover-possible" for each sex, then the dwarf is bisexual, but will never marry. And so on.
Implying that the middle number is not required for Dwarves to get married. And even that the middle number will limit the number of marriages. It even goes so far as to say
Adding [ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:100] to females and [ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:100] to males would effectively make them behave exclusively heterosexually with no interest whatsoever toward the same sex, like they did in previous versions.
-
Hiya,
[quote author=sal880612m link=topic=141129.msg5503823#msg5503823 date=
What about the other conditions? Have your dwarfs had any sort of idle time? Is there a meeting area, statue garden, well, or dining room in your fort? If your dwarfs aren't socializing their relationships won't progress.
[/quote]
These particular dwarfs haven't had a job (other than hauling stuff to the depot) since the first migrant wave (two and a half years ago, game time). The meeting zone is a 1x1, to ensure that they all socialize (this is a generational fort, after all). In the 34.xx versions and before, I'd have the vast majority of my single dwarves in a romantic relationship by now, but in this fort none of my 8 single dwarves are. My only married dwarves migrated in with their spouses.
-Dame de la Licorne
-
Hmmm, then the wiki should be updated. It implies that a single roll is made and a dwarf is either disinterested, romantically interested, or commitedly interested. And that there is no overlap.
... You seem to be misunderstanding something somewhere. The interest level is more in the nature of how far the dwarf is willing to go in a relationship with disinterest being not entering one, romantically interested being taking a lover, and commitedly interested being willing to eventually marry a lover.
Like I said, the wiki should be updated then, it states clearly that a roll is made and a dwarf will fall somewhere in one of the three categories.
A one-time check is made for each creature to determine orientation, by "rolling a die" once for each sex, against the total of the three chances for that sex. If a given dwarf rolls "disinterested" for the same sex, and "commitment-possible" for the opposite sex, then that dwarf is strictly heterosexual, and is willing to become married. If the dwarf rolls "lover-possible" for each sex, then the dwarf is bisexual, but will never marry. And so on.
Implying that the middle number is not required for Dwarves to get married. And even that the middle number will limit the number of marriages. It even goes so far as to say
Adding [ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:100] to females and [ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:100] to males would effectively make them behave exclusively heterosexually with no interest whatsoever toward the same sex, like they did in previous versions.
Then update it! It's a wiki.
-
I'm not sure what it should be updated to. If the middle number is required for marriages then testing should be done to determine the exact effect that the number has on the amount of Dwarves getting married.
For instance if using [0:50:100] then do 2/3 of dwarves get married and 1/3 just take lovers?
Then [0:1:99] 99% of dwarves should get married and only 1% just take lovers?
Shouldn't that mean that for [0:0:100] 100% of dwarves get married and 0% just take lovers?
Or does [0:50:100] mean that 1/2 of the dwarves take lovers, and of those 1/2 all of them get married? That wouldn't make sense unless the numbers were percentages which we know they are not.
EDIT: For pure logic, it would make sense that the wiki was right;
The first number means your interest is capped at "No Interest"
The second number means your interest is capped at "Lover"
The third number means your interest is capped at "Marriage"
Meaning that [0:0:100] should get you lovers with possibilities for marriages while [0:100:0] only gets you lovers
-
I might be able to do some testing with this, will help if just setting marriage or relationship interest to 100/0 respectively make it so I don't need to add interactions to give sterile in game to prevent in fort population bursts. But does it effect world gen? and migrants that may be married already?
Might be interesting for making personalized castes (for various mental disorders Sociopath and antisocial, etc. So can mix and match personality traits with maybe loving but never setting down)
-
EDIT: For pure logic, it would make sense that the wiki was right;
The first number means your interest is capped at "No Interest"
The second number means your interest is capped at "Lover"
The third number means your interest is capped at "Marriage"
Meaning that [0:0:100] should get you lovers with possibilities for marriages while [0:100:0] only gets you lovers
This is close to my understanding except that in the first cases it isn't possibilities, all dwarves that become lovers should marry.
My comment was at Hugo the Dwarf saying that lover possibility needed a non-zero value.
The wiki does seem incomplete to me though. As a by caste tag it needs to be defined for each caste available. So I am uncertain whether
[CASTE:MALE]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:100]
[CASTE:FEMALE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:100]
would result in the old behaviour because the lack of an orientation setting for the same caste results in the game assuming zero values or if it uses the default values instead. Essentially I am not sure whether the above guarantees heterosexuality only or just that heterosexuality will always be present but the possibility for same-sex relationships still exists.
[CASTE:MALE]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:1]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:0:0]
[CASTE:FEMALE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:1]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:1:0:0]
This should guarantee that all dwarfs will eventually take lovers and get married to a dwarf of the opposite gender provided the other marriage conditions are met.
-
Ah, as is often the case with things there was just a case of miscommunication (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg).
-
<-snip->
These particular dwarfs haven't had a job (other than hauling stuff to the depot) since the first migrant wave (two and a half years ago, game time). The meeting zone is a 1x1, to ensure that they all socialize (this is a generational fort, after all). In the 34.xx versions and before, I'd have the vast majority of my single dwarves in a romantic relationship by now, but in this fort none of my 8 single dwarves are. My only married dwarves migrated in with their spouses.
-Dame de la Licorne
When and how did you change your raws? Post the creature one if you can.
-
Hiya sal880612m,
The ONLY change to the creature_standard raw that I made I posted in the OP, but here it is again (everything else in that entry is the default):
[CREATURE:DWARF]
[CASTE:FEMALE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:100]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:100:0:0]
[CASTE:MALE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:100:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:100]
I made the adjustment BEFORE generating this current world, so the changes should have affected every dwarf to end up in my fortress (whether founder or migrant). As I also previously stated, everything I've done to encourage marriages (other than the raw adjustment), all worked in every previous 3D version (at least the ones that allowed marriages after immigration). So I'm wondering if I misunderstood something regarding the [ORIENTATION] values and filled them in wrong and/or if there was something else that changed with this version that I don't know about?
-Dame de la Licorne
-
To be clear did you add ORIENTATION to the existing castes or did you just drop what you posted in somewhere?
-
Hiya,
To be clear did you add ORIENTATION to the existing castes or did you just drop what you posted in somewhere?
I added the ORIENTATION info (in my previous post) to the already existing castes (which is what the wiki says to do). I did NOT add extra castes, or drop it in randomly.
-Dame de la Licorne
Edit: Anyone know if dwarves stuck at "Friendly Terms" will ever move on? Because most of the single ones seem to be on friendly terms with at least one of their age-mates and I'm wondering if that has something to do with the lack of lovers/marriages.
-
Had some people visit yesterday so I wasn't able to do much computer wise but I remember reading something about Friendly Terms but not the exact specifics. I think the general idea was that Friendly terms was a non-hostile dead end relationship wise.
I thought it was a post by Toady but browsing his posts I couldn't find it. I did however find confirmation that marriage will let lovers occur as well.
Those two things make me think it's likely that is your issues especially since I can't find anything else wrong.
From what I remember it was in the new Future of the Fortress (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=140544.0), First Impressions 0.40.01 And Beyond (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=140018.0), or the the Equal Rights thread but the smallest of those threads is 12-13 pages and all of them have a ton of other stuff going on in them.
-
Another theory would be that there either is or isn't a romantic interest. If romantic interest exists, there's a percentage chance for them to get married.
If this is correct, 0:100:100 should get everyone married, while 0:100:50 should get everyone romantically interested, but only 50% married. Don't really have time or motivation to research this, sorry. If anyone does, please post your findings though. :)
-
Again, the default values add up to 100. They are AFAIK relative to one another in much the same way as, say, pop ratios are.
-
Another theory would be that there either is or isn't a romantic interest. If romantic interest exists, there's a percentage chance for them to get married.
If this is correct, 0:100:100 should get everyone married, while 0:100:50 should get everyone romantically interested, but only 50% married. Don't really have time or motivation to research this, sorry. If anyone does, please post your findings though. :)
Toady has already said
(marriage includes lovers. also chance was a bad word for me to use -- it works more like the other sum-totals in the raws, so that if you do something like 3:6:1, that is actually 30%,60%,10% -- this is also set once upon generation to give a unit an orientation, and after that, they never look at these numbers again, and use their regular socializing code, only finalizing what would be a relationship if the orientation of both parties allows it.)
here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=140479.msg5472587#msg5472587
So what the OP has done means that any dwarf will get married as long as the other conditions are met. However, even in the past there were some dwarfs who because of personality would never get married to each other. They should still marry other partners though.
-
Given that normal dwarven activities often preclude the formation of relationships to begin with, I guess you should also make sure your dwarves have plenty of down time to have conversations, just to cover all your bases?
-
Also make sure that they don't have conflicting personalities? Your issues may lie more with the personality re-write than the orientation tag.
-
strange that there are no examples in the raws.
do you need to put caste or gender tags in the raws to make it work?
how do this behaves toward genderless castes of a creature?
-
strange that there are no examples in the raws.
do you need to put caste or gender tags in the raws to make it work?
how do this behaves toward genderless castes of a creature?
I can't find it now, but I believe the ORIENTATION tags refer to genders, not castes. I'm not at my machine now, but you can test this quickly by changing the Dwarf castes to GUY and GAL with orientations that refer to MALE and FEMALE.
If it refers to genders, then no one will ever be interested in a genderless caste member because they are neither MALE nor FEMALE. The genderless ones might have orientations (find particular genders attractive) but it's irrelevant because they'd never find a match.
If it refers to castes, then you can set up some of your critters for very complicated relationships. The she-wolf might have [ORIENTATION:ALPHA_MALE:0:1:10] and [ORIENTATION:BETA_MALE:0:20:1].
-
Unfortunately I believe it is only the gender not the caste that can be defined in ORIENTATION. I wish it was caste though... that would be a lot of fun.
-
I know for a fact that it's sex--the data structures have a 5-bit bitfield to represent it, where the last 4 bits are male_lover, male_marry, female_lover and female_marry. The first bit is the only one adventurers have, not sure what it means.
-
I know for a fact that it's sex--the data structures have a 5-bit bitfield to represent it, where the last 4 bits are male_lover, male_marry, female_lover and female_marry. The first bit is the only one adventurers have, not sure what it means.
Perhaps it prevents romantic entanglements entirely? So that when you retire an adventurer you don't come back to find he's taken a husband or popped out a bunch of kids or something? (Does that happen?)
So can you have male_marry but not male_lover? What would that mean?
I've got to go make a thread in suggestions for caste-based orientation instead of [MALE] and [FEMALE] tags, which is how it appears to work right now.
-
The first bit is the only one adventurers have, not sure what it means.
It is likely the "undetermined" flag that Toady mentioned in this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=140544.msg5471494#msg5471494).
-
The first bit is the only one adventurers have, not sure what it means.
It is likely the "undetermined" flag that Toady mentioned in this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=140544.msg5471494#msg5471494).
Yeah, and he also specifically mentioned that it was genders (not castes). Aside from breaking the data structure into something bigger than a byte, I don't quite get the hesitation to target castes with these tags.
-
Might be, because increasing the matrix of possibilities for multi-caste creatures would swell it up in a geometric scale? Toady said something about the optimisation for multi-caste relationships being a nightmare.
-
AFAIK it would have to be a vector of bitfields (probably two-bit). Problem is the checks, which might in fact be difficult.
male_lover means "will be a lover but not marry"; marry means both.
-
I have a question! would it be possible to change this value mid-game, or would it require an entirely new worldgen? I have a role-playing fort in which a particular couple was meant to produce heirs, and that cannot happen at present.
-
Changing it won't change any existing relationships and I'm not sure about what it would do to existing dwarves.
Why can't that happen? One of the dwarves not willing to marry/not interested in opposite sex?
-
Yeah, I have had these dwarves age 65 and 60 locked away for three years straight in a 2x2 room with similar skills (Brewing and Masonry) and what do not appear to be very different personalities. They are either not hetero or uninterested in love.
I'm not interested in fixing their present relationships, just interested in helping them FIND one. If we aren't certain of the results on existing dwarves, I'll just tinker tonight and report back.
-
Would removing the Orientation tag simply make it work like back in 34.11?
-
You may notice that it's not anywhere in the vanilla raws. By default, they have only a 25% chance to be interested in the same sex and a 95% chance to be interested in the opposite. You need to add it in a certain way.
Also, I don't think changing the raws will help. The orientation of an individual is kept in their soul. I could write a DFHack script to make them both straight... but it might be difficult to you.
-
You may notice that it's not anywhere in the vanilla raws. By default, they have only a 25% chance to be interested in the same sex and a 95% chance to be interested in the opposite. You need to add it in a certain way.
Also, I don't think changing the raws will help. The orientation of an individual is kept in their soul. I could write a DFHack script to make them both straight... but it might be difficult to you.
I ought to learn such things. Is there information on the wiki to get someone started in learning? I'm willing to learn if it means getting these two good. Is it possible to script something to simply change the relationships? I know Runesmith used to be able to do it way back when.
-
Yeah, with DFHack, which isn't fully updated yet.
-
So has anyone figured out how to make your dwarves always heterosexual and will marry?
-
FEMALE caste
[ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:100]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:100:0:0]
MALE caste
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:100]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:100:0:0]
-
won't dwarf therapist flat out tell you their sexuality?
Also, isn't possible your two dwarves just aren't interested in each other? I mean, it seems like the science of who a dwarf will find attractive isn't super exact so they may just not be interested in each other specifically. Or perhaps I am giving them credit for more detail than they have.
-
Also, isn't possible your two dwarves just aren't interested in each other? I mean, it seems like the science of who a dwarf will find attractive isn't super exact so they may just not be interested in each other specifically. Or perhaps I am giving them credit for more detail than they have.
This is possible and quite likely. Look at the relationship system (past and present) for examples.
Also note that creatures decide their orientation at birth/existence so editing raw ORIENTATION later won't affect your current dwarves.
-
However, you can edit orientation really freaking easily with DFHack.
gui/gm-editor on the dwarf, navigate to status/current_soul/personality/orientation_flags.
-
Hi, i up this topic to refresh a little question.
Does ORIENTATION tag REALLY affect worldgen ?
The wiki seems to say yes (it say : dwarves will be wipped out quickly with ORIENTATION:X:100:0:0] for example) but my personnal testing seems to say no. I am just testing orientation set to 100:0:0 for both castes (male and female) to their counterpart, for each race in the game after made them mortal AND deleted the limitation of site and pop in world generation. And on the long run, i am at 300 years of worldgen and site keep poping everywhere...
Soooo, i imagine this tag doesn't work during worldgen finally, or at least doesn't work anymore in this way.
If anyone can confirm ...
-
It only affects historical figures, not site pops. Site populations will still be popped up from the aether as long as there is a MALE and FEMALE caste. This has always been the case.
-
Ok, so it is an error of the wiki.
Does this "population simulation" take count of the ratio between male of female. In fact : more general question : does it simulate pregnancy of these population, at which rate etc...
So, if i create a CASTE of female which is only present in small numbers, by using the [POP_RATIO:XX] for example. Could it be a good way to prevent them from popping from aether in TOO great number ? (i try to limitate the population in a "natural way" during world gen in non playable race instead of using the site cap) instead of using the orientation tag.
-
Ok, so it is an error of the wiki.
Does this "population simulation" take count of the ratio between male of female. In fact : more general question : does it simulate pregnancy of these population, at which rate etc...
So, if i create a CASTE of female which is only present in small numbers, by using the [POP_RATIO:XX] for example. Could it be a good way to prevent them from popping from aether in TOO great number ? (i try to limitate the population in a "natural way" during world gen in non playable race instead of using the site cap) instead of using the orientation tag.
Caste ratio seems to work ok on populations. I've been playing with that recently. I can only really tell by how many become historical figures of course, but the number visibly cut down when I reduced the ratio of one caste from 1% to 0.5% of the population. That's based on observing 20-30 or so worldgens of each.
Whether that effects breeding is another question though. You'd have to experiment (I was just adding a third caste).
-
Yes, i will test that with no female caste or a very rare occurence of them in elves, for example, to test.