Print

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

[GoblinCookie]

Being pregnant is not the issue. You don't want to lose women because they are pregnant, you don't want to lose women, period. Just because a women got a kid doesn't mean she will stop having kids, the growth of the tribe remains linked to the number of women in age of procreation. So yeah, even when a woman is not pregnant, you keep her out of harms way.

Or you don't and get conquered by tribes who do, and therefore grow faster than you.

No, because the total number of babies the average woman produces is far less than the number of babies that they feasibly could produce (aka the earlier discussion about ducks ).  A woman can actually produce 20+ babies in a lifetime, but the actual women of most of history produced about 6 babies, half of which died before reaching adulthood.  This means we have end up with only 3 babies per woman, which is why there are so few people in the world for most of history. 

Because most women are never able to reproduce to their full extent (and could not afford to anyway), that means we have a surplus baby-making capacity of something like 75%.  That means there really is no particular reason to care about keeping all those women safe, since as long as 1/4 of them survive, your society is quite capable of having as many babies as before. 

In this instance, if said emerald eyes were ubiquitous among the population and one dwarf was suddenly born with amethyst eyes, it is completely reasonable and expected that the said dwarf would be discriminated against, be the cause for such prejudice be envy, superstition or whatever. And that is exactly what i want to see. At worst, I'd just be a bit of flavour, at best it'd be a catalyst for a great story.

That does not make sense at all.  I see no logic given as to why anyone would care. 

True, but there can easily be reasons not to train one gender as warriors at all.

In real-life where the sexes do not have the same average abilities.  In Dwarf Fortress however......

[SixOfSpades]

Devnotes:
Various possiblities that guide or govern fortress activity: frontier settlement, religious site, prison colony . . .

Yeah, I saw that, I'm just pointing out the difference between "possible" and "actually planned."

I always imagine it more along the lines of being a bunch of convicts deposited in a hostile environment (monster island?) trying to build a new home and survive.

More like Australia than Alcatraz, then? That could work, although it rather blurs the difference between a so-called "prison colony" and a perfectly normal, vanilla DF embark. If the only difference is a bit of flavor text with the liaison, I'm not going to be terribly impressed.

Nor do i like the idea of being arbitrarily limited in what or how I'm allowed to play. Dwarf Fortress is about that, y'know? "Be whoever the hell you want, Do whatever the hell you want" kind of deal. Dwarf fortress really is exactly what you make of it, if you want it to be a power fantasy and play an evil overlord, you should be allowed to . . .

A very valid point, but with something of an inherent conflict with the concept of procedurally-generated civilizations. What if you discover the perfect embark site, and find out only after you arrive there that your civ (the only civ able to embark in this magical place) requires you to denigrate and oppress gnomes/gorlaks/dwarves with cinnamon skin/etc.? Not really an insurmountable difficulty, just add the ability to explore all facets of a civ's culture as part of the Embark window, but that could still easily sour that "perfect" embark for you.
Objection #2: Tying prejudice directly to a Violence slider means players will be unable to control whether they want conflict from within or without their own society. Personally, I don't want to start a game not knowing if I'm going to be fighting goblins, or myself (or perhaps both).
Objection #3: The saga of a certain Meatgod has already demonstrated ample proof that Toady absolutely does not want players to be able to do just whatever the hell they want. Sure, Toady doesn't control mods, but I wouldn't expect him to deliberately build framework for mods that he knows he's not going to like.

[Strik3r]

Nor do i like the idea of being arbitrarily limited in what or how I'm allowed to play. Dwarf Fortress is about that, y'know? "Be whoever the hell you want, Do whatever the hell you want" kind of deal. Dwarf fortress really is exactly what you make of it, if you want it to be a power fantasy and play an evil overlord, you should be allowed to . . .

A very valid point, but with something of an inherent conflict with the concept of procedurally-generated civilizations. What if you discover the perfect embark site, and find out only after you arrive there that your civ (the only civ able to embark in this magical place) requires you to denigrate and oppress gnomes/gorlaks/dwarves with cinnamon skin/etc.? Not really an insurmountable difficulty, just add the ability to explore all facets of a civ's culture as part of the Embark window, but that could still easily sour that "perfect" embark for you.

The thing is, i don't like arbitrary, hardcoded restrictions on playstyle, that's about it. i favour and in fact support the implementation of in-game consequences for player actions.
Sure, you can play an oppresive, evil overlord, but the consequences are yours to deal with as well. Same goes for your example of a civ-wide systematic oppression of creatures based on their skin color; you're free to follow it or to ignore it, just be mindful of the consequences either of these actions may have.

Objection #2: Tying prejudice directly to a Violence slider means players will be unable to control whether they want conflict from within or without their own society. Personally, I don't want to start a game not knowing if I'm going to be fighting goblins, or myself (or perhaps both).

I mean, i guess you're right. It'd just feel super weird to have a world with a ton of oppression and prejudice, but no actual violence...
The opposite being true as well, to a degree at least... a world with boundless Violence without prejudice is a interesting concept.

Objection #3: The saga of a certain Meatgod has already demonstrated ample proof that Toady absolutely does not want players to be able to do just whatever the hell they want. Sure, Toady doesn't control mods, but I wouldn't expect him to deliberately build framework for mods that he knows he's not going to like.

Some things should not exist. There are some things even i draw a line on and say:"That's way too fucking far", that thing, is one of them.
The merpeople bones thing however, is something that was pure, emergent gameplay, even if disgusting, but stuff like that is fair game IMO.

[Maximum Spin]

Objection #3: The saga of a certain Meatgod has already demonstrated ample proof that Toady absolutely does not want players to be able to do just whatever the hell they want. Sure, Toady doesn't control mods, but I wouldn't expect him to deliberately build framework for mods that he knows he's not going to like.

To draw a parallel to another popular thread, that fact, more than any other, is "what turns me off about DF". The moral deficiency of the developer shouldn't decide what's included in a procgen sandbox game.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Devnotes:
Various possiblities that guide or govern fortress activity: frontier settlement, religious site, prison colony . . .
Yeah, I saw that, I'm just pointing out the difference between "possible" and "actually planned."

These are Toady's words. Suggested by himself, not a forum suggestion. He doesn't need to approve himself.
He's also mentioned it once or twice in fotf when the subject came up.

(off-topic, sorry. you can get back to sex now).

[KittyTac]

Objection #3: The saga of a certain Meatgod has already demonstrated ample proof that Toady absolutely does not want players to be able to do just whatever the hell they want. Sure, Toady doesn't control mods, but I wouldn't expect him to deliberately build framework for mods that he knows he's not going to like.

To draw a parallel to another popular thread, that fact, more than any other, is "what turns me off about DF". The moral deficiency of the developer shouldn't decide what's included in a procgen sandbox game.

I think Toady's backlash was because it was posted on the forums. Nobody cares if you keep it to yourself.

Though both merpeople and Meatgod did not horrify me at all. I'm really resistant to such things.

[GoblinCookie]

The thing is, i don't like arbitrary, hardcoded restrictions on playstyle, that's about it. i favour and in fact support the implementation of in-game consequences for player actions.
Sure, you can play an oppresive, evil overlord, but the consequences are yours to deal with as well. Same goes for your example of a civ-wide systematic oppression of creatures based on their skin color; you're free to follow it or to ignore it, just be mindful of the consequences either of these actions may have.

All of that is a lot of work, it is a lot less work just to simplify the game by arbitrary hard-coded restrictions on playstyle. 

Also, these things would not realistically be down to the player.  Your civilization would be racist/sexist/whatever and the optimal playstyle would then be to go along with it, because realistically they should rebel if you try to keep them from being bigots. 

I think Toady's backlash was because it was posted on the forums. Nobody cares if you keep it to yourself.

Though both merpeople and Meatgod did not horrify me at all. I'm really resistant to such things.

Nobody knows is not the same as nobody cares. 

[KittyTac]

I think Toady's backlash was because it was posted on the forums. Nobody cares if you keep it to yourself.

Though both merpeople and Meatgod did not horrify me at all. I'm really resistant to such things.

Nobody knows is not the same as nobody cares.

The end result is the same.

The thing is, i don't like arbitrary, hardcoded restrictions on playstyle, that's about it. i favour and in fact support the implementation of in-game consequences for player actions.
Sure, you can play an oppresive, evil overlord, but the consequences are yours to deal with as well. Same goes for your example of a civ-wide systematic oppression of creatures based on their skin color; you're free to follow it or to ignore it, just be mindful of the consequences either of these actions may have.

All of that is a lot of work, it is a lot less work just to simplify the game by arbitrary hard-coded restrictions on playstyle. 

Also, these things would not realistically be down to the player.  Your civilization would be racist/sexist/whatever and the optimal playstyle would then be to go along with it, because realistically they should rebel if you try to keep them from being bigots.

That is a lazy excuse. Toady is still relatively young. There is enough time, and even if he dies before finishing, someone else will take up development.

[GoblinCookie]

The end result is the same.

True.  However I was talking about a person's opinion, if a person does not know something it does not mean they approve of it does it? 

That is a lazy excuse. Toady is still relatively young. There is enough time, and even if he dies before finishing, someone else will take up development.

It is just facts, the more diverse the gameplay is, the more work there is.  There are also cool stuff most people would want to see sooner rather than later (multi-tile creatures, economy, better invaders) and while Toady One is figuring out the intricacies of bigotry, work is not being done on that.  I feel the world needs multi-tile creatures far more than it needs bigotry, if given a choice between the two I would go for the former. 

[KittyTac]

The end result is the same.

True.  However I was talking about a person's opinion, if a person does not know something it does not mean they approve of it does it? 

If you do not see bad stuff, you will not be disturbed. There should just be a rule to keep it off the forums.

It is just facts, the more diverse the gameplay is, the more work there is.  There are also cool stuff most people would want to see sooner rather than later (multi-tile creatures, economy, better invaders) and while Toady One is figuring out the intricacies of bigotry, work is not being done on that.  I feel the world needs multi-tile creatures far more than it needs bigotry, if given a choice between the two I would go for the former.

But it could be implemented later. I would want to see bigotry eventually. But multi-tile creatures are more important, I agree.

[VislarRn]

Most rational solution to player's whatever gameplay preferences, is not restrictions, but advanced worldgen options.

Already worldgen is almost fourth type of gameplay itself, after fortress, adventurer and legends mode, and it is going to be more advanced in the future. Most optimal way to solve these problems is to include more different possibilities to generate different gameplay worlds for different tastes. You might have more LotR style idealistic world or GoT style oppressive and more decadent atmosphere.

One of these worlds might generally reward good/honorable/idealistic behaviour another is more dark, brutal, oppression means success gameplay style. It is foolish to say that one of those is generally better than other because these different styles just explore their own aspects of human condition.

[happy face]

I see that they are getting confused, maybe in fortress mode you can choose your sexist, racist etc.
for what? let's say you could tell your dwarves that the goblins are not trustworthy
if in these with a war with a race  your dwarfs hate them
also not necessarily all races have prejudices
they could add that they have prejudices with races, for example that the other races do not want to speak with a goblins because they think it is bad, the elves that bother to be so naturalistic
and many more things could make the world more alive

[Detoxicated]

I always wonder why people keep arguing about possible additions of atrocities while you are able to build a DDC and kill your enemy by biting and shaking its neck...

Its not like you couldn't already kill all brown eyed dwarves if that is what you wish to do...

Discrimination should still be added due to the simulating nature of df. There should be personal discimination and systematic discrimination. That way you can have generally egalitarian societies with the occasional discriminator AND you get to see oppressive states.

Fortress mode will probably not be affected by this anyway . Maybe your immigrants are less diverse in an oppressive system

[Cathar]

Because most women are never able to reproduce to their full extent (and could not afford to anyway), that means we have a surplus baby-making capacity of something like 75%.  That means there really is no particular reason to care about keeping all those women safe, since as long as 1/4 of them survive, your society is quite capable of having as many babies as before. 

You missed the point. I havent talked about "regrowing after a catastrophy". Someone else made that argument. I'm talking average growth rates. 10 women will produce, on average, more offsprings than 5 women. 10 women and 5 men will produce more offsprings than 10 men and 5 women.

I don't even know what to say about surplus babies. Either you totally missed the point or are just trolling. Your argument is like "why would people discover agriculture ? They can eat roots and berry therefore agriculture is unnecessary". It is idiotic.

What more, I am attempting to provide an explanation to a fact that is consistant, cross culturally, through human history. There was never wide spread female warrior cultures. Never existed. Transmission by and to male members of the family (which is the whole point of marriage by the way) exists everywhere but in isolated islands. My explanation is consistent with the facts and does not make unecessary assumptions.

But you're not even arguing against the explanations. You're arguing against the easily observable facts. This is why you never make any sense.

Edit : Aaaand now the topic has devolved into racially charged discussion. I'm out of here, cheers

[GoblinCookie]

If you do not see bad stuff, you will not be disturbed. There should just be a rule to keep it off the forums.

We are talking about Toady One programming in bad stuff.  Therefore in the context you statement along the lines of "doesn't know doesn't hurt him" does not make sense.

Most rational solution to player's whatever gameplay preferences, is not restrictions, but advanced worldgen options.

Already worldgen is almost fourth type of gameplay itself, after fortress, adventurer and legends mode, and it is going to be more advanced in the future. Most optimal way to solve these problems is to include more different possibilities to generate different gameplay worlds for different tastes. You might have more LotR style idealistic world or GoT style oppressive and more decadent atmosphere.

One of these worlds might generally reward good/honorable/idealistic behaviour another is more dark, brutal, oppression means success gameplay style. It is foolish to say that one of those is generally better than other because these different styles just explore their own aspects of human condition.

The problem is that all settings still have to be programmed in, which takes up time.  It might well be that Toady One can add in all sorts of stuff for all sorts of people, the problem is that even if it is not switched on by every players, it still took time to program; which makes giving everything to everyone high inefficient. 

If we have both types of worlds, then they both compete for resources with each-other.  In general terms, an ideal world is simpler to program than an oppressive world, because the latter is highly complicated while the former is fairly simple.  Cutting out the oppressive world is thus pretty much a good way to get more stuff done.

Because most women are never able to reproduce to their full extent (and could not afford to anyway), that means we have a surplus baby-making capacity of something like 75%.  That means there really is no particular reason to care about keeping all those women safe, since as long as 1/4 of them survive, your society is quite capable of having as many babies as before. 

You missed the point. I havent talked about "regrowing after a catastrophy". Someone else made that argument. I'm talking average growth rates. 10 women will produce, on average, more offsprings than 5 women. 10 women and 5 men will produce more offsprings than 10 men and 5 women.

I don't even know what to say about surplus babies. Either you totally missed the point or are just trolling. Your argument is like "why would people discover agriculture ? They can eat roots and berry therefore agriculture is unnecessary". It is idiotic.

What more, I am attempting to provide an explanation to a fact that is consistant, cross culturally, through human history. There was never wide spread female warrior cultures. Never existed. Transmission by and to male members of the family (which is the whole point of marriage by the way) exists everywhere but in isolated islands. My explanation is consistent with the facts and does not make unecessary assumptions.

But you're not even arguing against the explanations. You're arguing against the easily observable facts. This is why you never make any sense.

Edit : Aaaand now the topic has devolved into racially charged discussion. I'm out of here, cheers

There are no female warrior cultures because women are weaker than men as a physical fact, that was what I was saying.  Unless you can send more than 50% of your population off to war, this means that male warriors compete with female warriors, the former are better hence you end up with male armies and armies have a tendency to overthrow civilian governments.  You were arguing that the gender roles would occur irrespective of the abilities because of the importance of keeping all the precious women safe for breeding purposes, I was arguing that this was not the case because each woman has far fewer babies than she could have.

In any case, I am only answering for the sake of the rest of the forum.