Print

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

[Bufo]

there needs to be another intermediate stage that separates true children from teenagers.  Teenagers should be able to do more work and effectively be apprentices.

Yes, Teenage status from ages 12 to 18, marked by extreme moodiness, compulsive behavior, and a refusal to do enabled labors. I like it.

[Saiko Kila]

I'm against it. The twelve years threshold was a golden compromise between reality and functionality (after all, humans in ages past were supposed to act as adults at much younger age than it is today, especially when it comes to work including as soldiers). Eighteen years is too long to be usable.

The dwarves are already not comparable to humans, with their completely different life spans, and fertility ranges, so why forcing this arbitrary change? Only to appease some political sensitivities, I think, which mix life with fantasy too much to my liking.

[Bralbaard]

I've changed mine back to 12. From a gameplay perspective 18 is too long, I struggle getting multi generation fortresses going with 12 to be honest.
Also, they are born with beards, and are fantasy creatures. It's fine with me if humans grow up at 18, but for dwarves at some point you have to look at what's best from a gameplay perspective.

Another solution would be to shorten the number of ticks in a year drastically, like cut them in half, but that will likely unbalance a lot of other mechanics.   

[ArmokGoB]

It's fine with me if humans grow up at 18, but for dwarves at some point you have to look at what's best from a gameplay perspective.

All bets are off for fantasy races. However, for a medieval society, I would recommend 15 or 16 for humans (Crusader Kings got away with it for humans, so there's precedent for this being acceptable). Although, since it affects both body size and ability to work, I think the best solution would be to set different triggers for being able to work and being able to reproduce, alongside the physical aspects. As someone else said, creatures currently become adults, "body and mind," at their adult age.

[Flying Dice]

Changed the raws back down immediately.

It doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective (12 years is already longer than many fortresses get played for; barring children as migrants means no migrants in most cases).

It doesn't make sense from a realism perspective -- in pre-modern societies the onset of puberty was when you started working professionally, and you were already doing a hell of a lot more "chore" work than just carrying things around -- a quarter of the labors in DF would have been partially or wholly given to older children.

[Orange-of-Cthulhu]

I don't like it ... in medieval times maturity was reached much earlier. The game does so much to get a lot of facts right, I think this is a mistake.

I think 15 is right.

I don't want a teenage state as it didn't exist historically. AFAIK you just went straight from child to adult at around 14-16.

[jipehog]

Certainly, this has nothing todo with Child development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child). The question is whether they just got bent for the steam release crowd, or if they are planning to introduce any nuances in the foreseeable future (on post release timetable not on soon tm one)

If the later, I think that change to child tag doesn't make sense with how everything has been implemented for the past decade, maybe add an intermediate stage for intelligent races which will align with the American definition of 'mentally developed' and legal age.

For example: Baby->Child->Adolescent->Adult

I've changed mine back to 12. From a gameplay perspective 18 is too long, I struggle getting multi generation fortresses going with 12 to be honest.
Also, they are born with beards, and are fantasy creatures. It's fine with me if humans grow up at 18, but for dwarves at some point you have to look at what's best from a gameplay perspective.

Another solution would be to shorten the number of ticks in a year drastically, like cut them in half, but that will likely unbalance a lot of other mechanics.   

True, I doubt many will see a multi generation fort.

And while I can imagine a dwarf at the age of 2 with beard at the tavern, a human children at age of 2 and 17 being equal in abilities stretches the suspension of disbelief.

[Thisfox]

I don't like it, and see no point to it other than people who want to criticise the game making a big deal out of it if it's not 18. It's to prevent the inevitable haters, in my opinion, and to prevent liability, got nothing to do with gameplay. But hey, easily repairable, so easily ignored.

No loo(k) and being forced to use mouseover is much more annoying.

[jecowa]

I think overall it's an improvement since now we get chores, and I don't think I've ever played a fort for as long as 12 years anyway.

Eighteen seems a little high, though. It feels too modern. In the 1989 Disney movie "The Little Mermaid", the Little Mermaid mentions that she is 16 to let us know that she is old enough to get married. If he could lower it by 2 years to 16, I think that would be a good compromise. Mechanically it doesn't really effect me, but from an RP perspective, it feels like we are pushing modern human values onto dwarves.

[jecowa]

I like the idea of a new development phase between child and adult for the sentient races. Maybe don't call it a "teen", though; that sounds too modern, imo. Maybe make it "adolescent". For RP backwards compatibility, put adolescence at 12 years so the age of 12 still retains some significance to a dwarf. Let them learn a trade skill or something when they reach this age.

[jipehog]

it feels like we are pushing modern human values onto dwarves.

I don't mind this being implemented for the elves, who are immortal, but if they come to the dwarves and start demanding tree quotas and drinking age of 21 that is crossing the line!

[Mohreb el Yasim]

It is one line to change in the raws, so I don't feel concerned at all... It ain't the only "mending" I do anyway. In my worlds no one is immortal (to get goblin and elven necromancers) and they all live (animals too) 10k years. So I don't need to micro animal handling.
Except dwarves and humans, where I kept default ages so it feels more realistic (but I couldn't care less of an immortal goose).
Added benefit is that interesting animal men characters have a better chance to survive.

[Raven]

alright...

listen guys I can understand it COULD be for legal reasons (having a game with 13 years old creature that does hard labour and have marriage and kids could make some people uneasy)

but eh, some clicks and it's reverted as before

mostly because it fucks up some gameplay mechanics and no, children doing chores can be something that makes things worse in the long run (children handling corpses or more exposed to the outside world and they are defenceless)

another thing could be lowering the percentage of children in the migrant waves and the children cap

[ArmokGoB]

To all the people saying it's a simple change in the raws to reverse this:

It's important to recognize that this change affects the intended experience of the game. It is important to consider how the intended experience is affected (like how there's a separation between normal and hard difficulties, etc.), regardless of if one can make changes to the raws to make the game easier or harder. Basically, I want to consider the design implications of this change and how it is or isn't supported by the rest of the game mechanics and dynamics.

[Bumber]

Dwarves and goblins should be at 12, humans at 18, and elves at ~24.