Print

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

[FantasticDorf]

Big crutch of races is that after a certain number of years, they will have in worldgeneration on average between 2 to 8 children (or more) if they have a lifespan, however immortal races are virtually unlimited to how often they bear children in stable relationships over a long period of time leading to inevitable overpopulation the user can't do much about.

• They all look alike because often they are second cousins when every 3rd civilian you meet is your nephew, which is a very common observation on migrant relationship lists

• Kept in mind that divorces might disrupt these unions and make more fragmented and compact family units but pessimistically to say this might not be a total address to the issue.

I don't want to overcomplicate the process of marriages, but some simple changes to affecting their mindset wouldn't make creatures in their senility (whether they feel it or not) no less romantic but more considerate, such as preferencially wanting to marry other beings over their age infertility limit if they are not already engaged so that younger fertile spouses are not being 'wasted' and vice versa looking for partners in their own age brackets in a commited relationship rather than just loose lovers.

Code: [Select]

[CREATURE:DWARF]
[AGE_INFERTILITY:170]

[CREATURE:ELF]
[AGE_INFERTILITY:240]

[CREATURE:HUMAN]
[AGE_INFERTILITY:80]

[CREATURE:GOBLIN
[AGE_INFERTILITY:270]
However if you just wanted to avoid this, like the [MAXAGE] token, you'd just leave it out.

[Strik3r]

Depending on how you slice it, this might not even make sense for immortal races, as in typical fantasy, they're usually also endlessly fertile and they've got no reason to stop mating just because they've lived for some arbitrary amount of time... Defenitely not goblins, they're pretty much the perfect repersentation of degeneracy and debauchery. Elves? Maybe... Though the idea of all elves being a bunch of inbred hippies does make me chuckle.

The supposed "overpopulation"¹ for immortals may be be solvable if you screw around with the [ORIENTAION] token a bit, which i bet a lot of modders don't even know about, because not a single creature actually uses it, it's just there for modder convinience.

^1.I do not consider any amount of goblins "overpopulation", but not even a single one deserves to live! their numbers are the only thing that make them a threat.

[voliol]

Realistically, humans should have something like

Code: [Select]

    [SELECT_CASTE:FEMALE]
        [AGE_INFERTILITY:50]Dwarves could have the same but at a higher age, like 100 or 80.

[FantasticDorf]

The supposed "overpopulation"¹ for immortals may be be solvable if you screw around with the [ORIENTAION] token a bit, which i bet a lot of modders don't even know about, because not a single creature actually uses it, it's just there for modder convinience.

There is that, but in practice that does have some issues if you set 0:80:10 for a heterosexual relationships in that with creatures with high lust_propensity personality modifiers will seek out relationships anyway. Unless you make them like giant panda's and really not interested the population growth will be steady, i guess that aspect of it needs a lot of calibrating before you make it comfortable for a way for the player and the game to manage.

• There's the dying out race scenario to keep in mind which would be interesting to explore, where everyone in their civ is infertile due to younger populations dying out even if old age will not kill them

You could go a step further and put in infertiltiy orientation modifiers to build on the OP, more younger lovers and older married couples.

[Strik3r]

• There's the dying out race scenario to keep in mind which would be interesting to explore, where everyone in their civ is infertile due to younger populations dying out even if old age will not kill them

You could go a step further and put in infertiltiy orientation modifiers to build on the OP, more younger lovers and older married couples.

That could work, how about an extended  [ORIENTATION] tag such as [ORIENTATION_AGE] that takes an age value before "MALE" or "FEMALE"?
Like so: [ORIENTATION_AGE:Age:MALE/FEMALE:disinterested chance:lover-possible chance:commitment-possible chance]?

We could also have a fertility % tag, so instead of [AGE_INFERTILITY:age] we have [FERTILITY:age:percent], that way we can drop off or increase fertility over time.
Some possible functionality:

• The percent value is not capped to 100
• have FERTILITY be a caste tag and consider the fertility of both the male and the female.

[Putnam]

fertility is already somewhat implemented by gelding, so i don't think it's necessary to add the possibility for creatures to get gayer as they get older

[Strik3r]

fertility is already somewhat implemented by gelding, so i don't think it's necessary to add the possibility for creatures to get gayer as they get older

Gelding is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as it not only isn't present in worldgen, but it also does not affect civilized populations, aside from... freak accidents. So i have no idea what prompted you to bring it up.

Nor what prompted you to think of

the possibility for creatures to get gayer as they get older

While that would be a possibility if a system for changing creature orientation over time was implemented, i don't think that would be standard usage for the tag.

[Putnam]

fertility is already somewhat implemented by gelding, so i don't think it's necessary to add the possibility for creatures to get gayer as they get older

Gelding is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as it not only isn't present in worldgen, but it also does not affect civilized populations, aside from... freak accidents. So i have no idea what prompted you to bring it up.

because it's already a well-implemented way for fertility to change whose only difference from non-gelding fertility would be the lack of "x" around the gender symbol

Nor what prompted you to think of

the possibility for creatures to get gayer as they get older

While that would be a possibility if a system for changing creature orientation over time was implemented, i don't think that would be standard usage for the tag.

1. i'm gay
2. i've only used the ORIENTATION flag for gay stuff, so obviously if i see an extension to it i'm going to think of gay stuff

[FantasticDorf]

fertility is already somewhat implemented by gelding, so i don't think it's necessary to add the possibility for creatures to get gayer as they get older

Elves live in communes. Its all good. (possibly NSFW, but then all Likot Undendeb(SoapEater) panels sort of are, its spoilered on the other side too) 

fertility is already somewhat implemented by gelding, so i don't think it's necessary to add the possibility for creatures to get gayer as they get older

Gelding is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as it not only isn't present in worldgen, but it also does not affect civilized populations, aside from... freak accidents. So i have no idea what prompted you to bring it up.

No, no no, it's fine, its a perfectly good speaking point if you put it in the perspective of just coincidental accidental gelding, or ritualised gelding as a form of contraceptive ultimatum, its a grisly resolution but it'd work. A bit like a modern vasectomy.

[Strik3r]

No, no no, it's fine, its a perfectly good speaking point if you put it in the perspective of just coincidental accidental gelding, or ritualised gelding as a form of contraceptive ultimatum, its a grisly resolution but it'd work. A bit like a modern vasectomy.

its a grisly resolution

And unnecessary, some things are best left unexplored.
Implementing something like this would open a can of worms on par with unabstracted reproduction. Which i don't think toady is interested in doing.
Its better we handle the "issue"(if it even is one) in a more natural way, by making creatures less( or more) fertile or changing whether they're interested in having children as they age.

because it's already a well-implemented way for fertility to change whose only difference from non-gelding fertility would be the lack of "x" around the gender symbol

yeah, but its an important distinction between having a 20% chance of success, 0.001% or whether the check has to be made at all.

1. i'm gay

I kinda figured that out already by your rainbow avatar, but thanks for telling me.

[GoblinCookie]

Depending on how you slice it, this might not even make sense for immortal races, as in typical fantasy, they're usually also endlessly fertile and they've got no reason to stop mating just because they've lived for some arbitrary amount of time... Defenitely not goblins, they're pretty much the perfect repersentation of degeneracy and debauchery. Elves? Maybe... Though the idea of all elves being a bunch of inbred hippies does make me chuckle.

The supposed "overpopulation"¹ for immortals may be be solvable if you screw around with the [ORIENTAION] token a bit, which i bet a lot of modders don't even know about, because not a single creature actually uses it, it's just there for modder convinience.

^1.I do not consider any amount of goblins "overpopulation", but not even a single one deserves to live! their numbers are the only thing that make them a threat.

The longevity of creatures only effects historical characters, as does orientation.  Most creatures are not historical and do not track either.

[Putnam]

Yeah, and even more annoyingly, any made-historical-on-the-spot units who show up in migrant waves might be married against orientation, with a few children. Never het->homo against orientation, either, though that's probably a natural consequence of the mechanic(?) (it was introduced 0.44.05) attempting to get more kids into the fort

[FantasticDorf]

Its probably worth mentioning also that unrealistic batches of 20 children, also eventually leads to a lot of them being inbred and hard to couple without looking afield to a certain degree because the genetics simulation of inherited traits is pretty sparse.

There's not particularly a lot going on aesthetically for mutations in children looking distinct to a mix of their parents.

There should definitely be a cap wherein creature become disinterested in having a existing static living family size, humans being exhausted at 5, dwarves at 3, single child elves (it fits their personalities) and 10 children goblins therabouts.

[KittyTac]

There should definitely be a cap wherein creature become disinterested in having a existing static living family size, humans being exhausted at 5, dwarves at 3, single child elves (it fits their personalities) and 10 children goblins therabouts.

And customizable via entity/creature raws, for custom races/civs.

[Strik3r]

Its probably worth mentioning also that unrealistic batches of 20 children, also eventually leads to a lot of them being inbred and hard to couple without looking afield to a certain degree because the genetics simulation of inherited traits is pretty sparse.

There's not particularly a lot going on aesthetically for mutations in children looking distinct to a mix of their parents.

There should definitely be a cap wherein creature become disinterested in having a existing static living family size, humans being exhausted at 5, dwarves at 3, single child elves (it fits their personalities) and 10 children goblins therabouts.

The only problem with that is:

It makes no sense, especially as a hardcoded cap, and certanly not from a biological standpoint. It might if the cap was dynamic, and differed from one individual to the next depending on the personality. But that would just lead us into the issue of "Historical vs abstracted population" again, which GC helpfully pointed out. Also, hardcapping it also feels really gamey, however the chance that someone would want more children might decrease with each child they have, or it might not. Goblins? Not a chance. Elves, maybe. Dwarves, probably.