Print

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

[RenoFox]

The genetics tend to make all dwarves have mostly same hair and eye colors. For some mods, especially the pony ones, having a wider range of variation would be absolutely vital. An additional tag or value to make colors more random would fix this.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Tags aren't the way to go here. Proper genetics are.
Note that some traits, like skin color, are mostly homogeneous in populations that can't or don't mix. If the Fortresses of Steel are the only dwarves in the world, or all others are far, far away, homogenized populations are to be expected--to a point, at least.

[Mesa]

Do we actually have genetics in-game? (to an extent, that is)
Newb here, in case you haven't noticed.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Welcome.

Yes, we do. They're of the blending variety, not the variety that simulates alleles and such.

[RenoFox]

The genetics make sense in standard settings, but things like color and markings of technicolor ponies would require a way to override the basic behavior. Things like sunglasses would also be better off completely randomized for each creature that has them.

[King Mir]

Seems reasonable. I'd implement it as a mutation rate. For each trait, the child's attribute is equal to the average of the parents (or one of the parents) plus a number within +- the mutation rate * k. This could work for both numerical traits like size, and enumerated traits like having spots (though I don't think DF has enumerated traits).

[GreatWyrmGold]

That could be a neat addition. I'd like to see evolution of new breeds of animals, if not new species, during the lifetime of a fortress.

[Manveru Taurënér]

That could be a neat addition. I'd like to see evolution of new breeds of animals, if not new species, during the lifetime of a fortress.

There's no way evolution of new species could happen in such a short time period, and even breeding livestock to be noticeable different would be unfeasible unless you run forts for close to say a hundred years at least (and also impossible with the current "spore" reproduction system). Even over the course of a long world gen there wouldn't really be room for much evolution to take place, especially considering that the major driving forces for quick evolution of new traits and adaptations are completely absent as DF worlds are far too static for any real evolutionary pressure to be exerted towards new genetic traits.

[GreatWyrmGold]

"If not new species" as in "I know we couldn't make new species, but here's something else that could be neat." Geez, I suck at communication.

[Bytyan]

Once sporing has been made a little more personal, you could breed your own breeds of dogs, only breeding huge, fat ones with grey coats and black markings. That would be cool.

[Adrian]

It's generally a bad idea to give more power to the Random Number God.
Dwarf Fort should stick with actual genetics.

[wallyroberto]

Different breeds of animals, more animals for war training.

[Adrian]

Different breeds of animals, more animals for war training.

Or run a Nazi fortress, where all of your dwarves have blonde hair or some other arbitrary characteristic

[GreatWyrmGold]

It's generally a bad idea to give more power to the Random Number God.
Dwarf Fort should stick with actual genetics.

...Which, practically speaking, have a fair amount of randomness. For instance: Punnet squares, crossing-over.

[King Mir]

It's generally a bad idea to give more power to the Random Number God.
Dwarf Fort should stick with actual genetics.

Adding detailed genetics is more work for nearly the same payoff has having an unnaturally high mutation rate.