Print

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

[DrPoo]

How does having over nine thousand types of metals improve gameplay? How does different races of traders improve gameplay? How does tantrum spirals improve gameplay?
How does colour improve gameplay?

[Hyndis]

How does having over nine thousand types of metals improve gameplay? How does different races of traders improve gameplay? How does tantrum spirals improve gameplay?
How does colour improve gameplay?

Surely these questions are in jest. Really I hope they are.

[DrPoo]

How does having over nine thousand types of metals improve gameplay? How does different races of traders improve gameplay? How does tantrum spirals improve gameplay?
How does colour improve gameplay?

Surely these questions are in jest. Really I hope they are.

How does having a soundtrack improve gameplay? Why waste ~valueable memory resources we totally dont all have 8-12GB's of on naming dwarfs and places and items? Why?
Why have necromancers? Arent they just overpowered cheaters that add nothing to the game? Why did Toady even make it 3d?

Just throwing it out here.

[GoombaGeek]

How does having over nine thousand types of metals improve gameplay? How does different races of traders improve gameplay? How does tantrum spirals improve gameplay?
How does colour improve gameplay?

How does having a soundtrack improve gameplay? Why waste ~valueable memory resources we totally dont all have 8-12GB's of on naming dwarfs and places and items? Why?
Why have necromancers? Arent they just overpowered cheaters that add nothing to the game? Why did Toady even make it 3d?

Just throwing it out here.

An arseload of rhetorical questions are always a great addition to any thread, especially when you have no intention of answering them!

Oh wait, they're not. I'm sure there's some kind of fancy Latin word for arguing by bringing up about a dozen points at once and expecting us to reply to and care about all of them for some reason, but I don't know it.

[Loud Whispers]

An arseload of rhetorical questions are always a great addition to any thread, especially when you have no intention of answering them!

-Rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i'm all for homosexuality being implemented in the upcoming version. it would add more depth and would influence the game more than dwarves having favourite item types or materials; it would be extremely simple to implement; it would be a political statement, the best possible kind; it would put an end to these threads; and it's omission should offend people from the lgbt crowd. heterosexual relationships aren't simulated in depth, nor are friendships and grudges, but they are there. why aren't homosexual relationships there?

[GoombaGeek]

An arseload of rhetorical questions are always a great addition to any thread, especially when you have no intention of answering them!

-Rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered.

I was hoping no-one would notice

[Babylon]

Mechanically, this could be easily done by allowing members of the male cast to marry the male caste, and females to marry the females, and so forth. Could possibly implement an ethics token in the entity file, allowing some civs (dwarves, elves) to openly tolerate homosexuality, while others (humans, goblins) would shun it and some (kobolds, subterranean) wouldn't even understand the concept. It's an incredibly simple addition that takes only a couple lines of raws-editing and anyone could do it by themselves unless they were pants-on-head-retarded.

Also, please stop this horrible tardgument. There's really not a single reason why it couldn't be implemented barring time.

Is it a simple raw edit?  If you could point me toward where marriage is in the raws I would appreciate that.  I'd like to put homosexuality into my game.

[Babylon]

One thing that I think should always be considered is how does a suggestion improve gameplay?

What benefit is there for gameplay to add other gender pairings or even groupings? How does this improve gameplay? Just suggesting something isn't enough. The pro's and con's of gameplay should also be considered when suggesting something new.


I could perhaps see something in the civ ethics for things such as homosexual pairings, polygamy, or polyandry. Maybe some sort of goblin civilization, with the goblin king having a harem of wives, so a single male could have a vast number of children due to having multiple wives?

Or maybe some sort of free-love situation where a creature can marry any number of creatures of any gender. Hippie elves might do that.

Or even something as simple as being able to marry again, should a spouse end up dead. Currently you can have very long lived creatures who remain single for hundreds of years, because their spouse was killed by a groundhog early on. After hundreds of years they never remarried, and never had any additional children? Seems like a bit of an oversight for an immortal creature, like a goblin or elf.

The simple way that homosexuality improves gameplay is that it allows for gay troops.  People joke about this, but it was something done historically.  It was believed that a troop of gay men would fight harder as they were fighting for their lovers.  Excluding married females from the military makes strategic sense currently, as babies being killed in battle leads to tantrums.  Married straight males are more vulnerable to tantrums simply becuase of the existence of offspring.  Thus homosexuality, without any raw editing, just adding it as a marriage option, does add to game play.  Also, by encouraging it (for those who like to be selective about what immigrants they let into the fort) you can drastically cut down on the number of babies which I know is a source of annoyance for many.

[Loud Whispers]

An arseload of rhetorical questions are always a great addition to any thread, especially when you have no intention of answering them!

-Rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered.

I was hoping no-one would notice

AH CRAP THE EXCLAMATION MARK WAS INDICATIVE OF SARCASM

WHAT HAVE I DONE

The simple way that homosexuality improves gameplay is that it allows for gay troops.  People joke about this, but it was something done historically.  It was believed that a troop of gay men would fight harder as they were fighting for their lovers.  Excluding married females from the military makes strategic sense currently, as babies being killed in battle leads to tantrums.  Married straight males are more vulnerable to tantrums simply becuase of the existence of offspring.  Thus homosexuality, without any raw editing, just adding it as a marriage option, does add to game play.  Also, by encouraging it (for those who like to be selective about what immigrants they let into the fort) you can drastically cut down on the number of babies which I know is a source of annoyance for many.

Hurray for Spartan Homoioi. Though they were technically bisexual bronze Gods of war... At least around the age of 30.

I don't get what's the hate for all the children though. I got 32 children in my Fort; it takes 2 years to get 32 farmers out of them.

Is it a simple raw edit?  If you could point me toward where marriage is in the raws I would appreciate that.  I'd like to put homosexuality into my game.

Hard coded. It's the same reason we can't make syndromes that cause Dwarves to hate each other with a vengeance yet.

[forward]

on the other hand, troops consisted of gay lovers means also lots of soon-to-be-widows wittnessing their loved ones being mutilated to death. Aaand it's back to tantrum spiral.

I'd prefer a caste of eunuch-warriors, if castration was possible in the game

[GreatWyrmGold]

How does having over nine thousand types of metals improve gameplay? How does different races of traders improve gameplay? How does tantrum spirals improve gameplay?
How does colour improve gameplay?

It offers more choices and is no where near 9,000 (not even three dozen, I don't think it breaks a score); by giving more variety of trade goods; by requiring you to keep dwarves happen (and it's emergent behavior, not deliberately programmed); and by making the display comprehendible.


And I'd like to mention that, as the game is now, homosexuality would just be a kind of friendship which prevents marriage. It should be added, but not until marriage is more than a way to make babies. (Unless, as I have speculated in the past, dwarven marriage really is just a way to make babies, in which case the concept of homosexuality as Earth-humans would not exist due to it not meshing with the dwarven definitions of analogous words.)

[Askot Bokbondeler]

relationships are also a means for dwarves to gain good and bad thoughts and another venue for the game to tell a story. i'm ok with homosexuality in game being simply the removal of the gender restriction on the formation of "lover" relationships. why are you so opposed to simplified homosexuality when every other relationship is simplified?

[Aerie]

I don't think adding homosexuality would bring much to the game, honestly.

Why not?

[GoombaGeek]

hey a spambot! i'm going to bookmark your post and check it every other week or so just so i can report you when a link pops up in your sig. don't take it personally, it's just a thing i like to do

No, I will be the first!

No offense to you.