Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NW_Kohaku]

OK, I posted a bug report.

Also, I should link back to this thread, while I'm at it: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=157394.0

It greatly depends on what level of bugginess is required. Finding dorfs pining (distracted) for nonexistent family is easy. Finding a dorf who's not willing to commit to marriage that dreams of raising a family should be easy as well.  Proving that a dorf who is put off by the thought of marriage but dreams of raising a family can't be pushed into marriage is obviously harder.

It should be pretty easy.  DF Hack will tell you when a dwarf won't marry.

Yes. We're apparently talking past each other. The first example doesn't require anything at all, while the second one can easily be checked via DFHack. The third one, however, is hard because proving something doesn't happen even if you push it for an eternity takes, well, an eternity.
This save http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=11983 (posted for a vampire bug) has "Glassmaker" dreaming about raising a family, while refusing to marry, i.e. my second case.

Well, your last case is one that assumes there's a way for a dwarf that will not marry to get married, anyway.  I don't think there needs to be elaborate steps to prove that, it's asking for proof of something that Toady will know whether he has coded or not.  Besides, he only just coded in an exception to animals not breeding because they had "commitment issues", which was due to breeding being based upon having the "marriageable" flag, not simply an "attracted" flag under ORIENTATION.

[PatrikLundell]

I think Toady coded the animal marriage commitment issue backwards, though. My experience indicates the animals still refuse to marry, but now procreate anyway. I would have preferred them never to refuse to marry instead (i.e. either truly uninterested in the gender, or going all the way, but never have the halfway state). And no, checking the Attraction flag alone won't work, since I've never seen it set at the same time as the marriage one: they seem to be mutually exclusive, not additive, so the check has likely been changed from checking the Marriage flag only to checking the Attraction one as well if it's an animal.

My last case is really one of whether "put off by the thought of marriage" is an absolute block or just a restriction like "does not easily fall in love" (but possibly stronger), provided, of course, "does not easily fall in love" is a restriction at all, and not just flavor.

[bmxbumpkin]

Still chuckling at pirate Santa. Hehehe

[PatrikLundell]

If I wanted to feed vampires I'd try to get hold of booze guzzlers, breed them (without taming), let one critter into a room with enough booze to drink itself unconscious, and then open/unlock the door (or probably a drawbridge, since I think a number of booze guzzlers are building destroyers) to tell the vamp that dinner is served, complete with a booze marinade. You COULD also use a cave-in stun, but that removes the chef dimension from the meal.

[NW_Kohaku]

I think Toady coded the animal marriage commitment issue backwards, though. My experience indicates the animals still refuse to marry, but now procreate anyway. I would have preferred them never to refuse to marry instead (i.e. either truly uninterested in the gender, or going all the way, but never have the halfway state). And no, checking the Attraction flag alone won't work, since I've never seen it set at the same time as the marriage one: they seem to be mutually exclusive, not additive, so the check has likely been changed from checking the Marriage flag only to checking the Attraction one as well if it's an animal.

My last case is really one of whether "put off by the thought of marriage" is an absolute block or just a restriction like "does not easily fall in love" (but possibly stronger), provided, of course, "does not easily fall in love" is a restriction at all, and not just flavor.

You'll not hear me argue against that, either.

The "marriage" dimension as a whole is rather bizarre. "Commitment issues" should be a purely social and personality-driven decision caused by dwarves having personality quirks that drive them away from maxing out their relationship meter to get to marriage. At best, the half-way setting should have been used as a "sorta attracted" setting that makes them gain romantic relationship points at half the rate, but not completely put marriage beyond the pale no matter the context.

It would, in fact, more accurately reflect a sort of Kinsey Scale of sexuality, with a dwarf possibly being fully attracted to men, but also being slightly attracted to women, although the hill would be much steeper for any woman to climb in that dwarf's heart.  It would be technically bi, but strongly preferring men.

[PatrikLundell]

- I agree a full/half/no strength sexuality scale for the two genders would make sense (or, since there are two bits available, make it strength 0-3).
- It would make sense of personality affected the rate at which they progressed to friendship; "only forms tenuous relationships" would be slow, and possibly decay fast. Similarly, some dorfs ought to quickly form a lot of shallow relations that were maintained easily.
- Other personality traits (possibly in conjunction with the set of the previous level) would affect the progression to the lover state ("constantly ablaze with lust" would probably make this fast").
- A third set of personality traits (again in conjunction with the first level, but probably not the second) would affect the progression to the married state.
- I'd argue the higher levels ought to affect the lower as well if positive: a lustful dorf ought to speed up the friendship gaining in order to reach the lover state (and the same logic for family formers). If possible, this should be selective so the speed gain would be applied only to eligible target (correct gender, age difference, race [I think that's currently mandatory, even though Cado seemed to be human and he hooked up with a dwarf {who probably was centuries older than he was}], and lover/maritial status).

Obviously, the above is seen from the perspective of one party. Currently relations can be asymmetric (one being friends with another who has no relation at all back to the first one), which probably is a bug. Lover/marriage are always been symmetric, to my knowledge and should be reached only when both parties have reached that point. It does make some real world sense to have asymmetric relation though: there are some people who consider themselves to be friends with most people they meet, while the other party can consider these people to be someone they vaguely know who they are.

Some human behaviors do not apply to dorfs, however. No sex outside of lover/wedlock relations (and reproduction only within wedlock), a strict single marriage total, etc.

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, this is getting further and further into suggestion thread territory, but...

Romance and friendship should probably be two different "relationship meters". Right now, you can't start dating someone until after you've been in the "friendzone" for a few months, which is more than slightly odd. Further, asexuality, or at least, sexuality not aimed at the target's gender is merely a lowered "relationship cap" at "friends".  It doesn't affect relationship development, presumably because as long as friendship and romance are the same bar, then having a penalty to increasing romance because they are not attracted to that gender would also be a penalty to friendship.

Separating out romantic attraction from simple friendship would allow you to turn off romance on a character or at least make romance gain really difficult on a character not truly or only partly attracted to a gender as a form of multiplier rather than arbitrary cap that simply gates off further progress without having any impact before the cap is reached.

It would also, presumably, allow for more realistic types of relationships, where you can date someone you were set up on a blind date with or just hooked up with or (considering the medieval lifestyle this game aspires to) your parents have arranged, while also having dwarves who are in a comfortable friendzone and don't feel any sort of desire to kick it up to a romantic relationship.

[PatrikLundell]

I'm not sure I agree given the premises that marriages are for life, short term flings don't exist, and arranged marriages don't exist. If those premises are changed, the system should change as well, however.
I still believe dorfs ought to pursue lover and marriage goals, and since the path currently is through friendship and lover respectively, the drive should push for those mile stones as part of the further goal.
I can accept there being a "natural" friendship progression rate that can't be exceeded, but those who have it reduced ought to have it (partially) restored by a push for the further goals.
There needs to be some kind of friendship attraction mechanism that causes dorfs to seek out those they think they want to further relations with, regardless of what the target level is, and avoid those they don't like (unless they're looking for an argument). That, however, requires them to get an initial idea of who the other characters are, and I think there ought to be a preference for getting to recognize other citizens over recognizing the hordes of performers streaming through the tavern.