Print

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

[Roses]

Ah, as is often the case with things there was just a case of miscommunication.

[sal880612m]

<-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.

[Dame de la Licorne]

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

[sal880612m]

To be clear did you add ORIENTATION to the existing castes or did you just drop what you posted in somewhere?

[Dame de la Licorne]

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.

[sal880612m]

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, First Impressions 0.40.01 And Beyond, 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.

[TheDorf]

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.

[Putnam]

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.

[sal880612m]

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.

[darkflagrance]

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?

[ArKFallen]

Also make sure that they don't have conflicting personalities? Your issues may lie more with the personality re-write than the orientation tag.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

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?

[Dirst]

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].

[Roses]

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.

[Putnam]

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.