RJW Wiern's Standalone

[dienow]

Honestly, it seems like someone needs to fork the project and concentrate on quality of life fixes before working about future content additions. Hey, weirn: I've been doing some testing on the last version before this one regarding the statistics of how rape functions during raids, as well as target acquisition. Once I've jotted down the numbers and identified some commonalities, I'll be posting them here for review. So far, I can identify three recurring problems:

 

1) Raiders ignore downed pawns despite having the appropriate sex need. I'm looking at around 20+ raiders for a raid, with 6 easy targets within vicinity. Of that, maybe 4 rape attempts will occur during the raid, and this is only if you down every pawn at the onset of the raid.

 

2) Raiders will always choose the same target. I'm guessing this is because of the spaghetti function that determines "fuckability," which is a measure of vulnerability and such. I can predict, like clockwork, who will be attacked in a raid if everyone is downed at the same time. There is hardly ever any deviation. There is a set order.

 

3) Raiders will hardly if ever attack downed pawns at a convenient time, and the entire raid can progress without attempts being made until a magical moment where all of them occur at once. This would seem to be some tick issue with proccing an attempt, but I don't have debug info, just numbers. Average attempts so far occur usually 3+ hours after a pawn is downed. Often longer.

 

This is a bad thing from a perspective of any attempts to rape actually occurring, for the following reasons:

 

1) Raiders will never, in real time, down every pawn at once. It will be a continuous thing. Submitting pawns in a combat situation is fluid. The lack of priority for raiders to make effective use of downed pawns means that it's unlikely the stars will align and they will. OFTEN, the pawns will either be too wounded to be seen as valid targets (common) or the raiders will have a minor scratch that dissuades them from attacking (very common) because sex_satisfy will not proc if a pawn isn't in the healthy state.

 

2) Often, raiders can end up either accomplishing their objectives before proccing an attempt at rape, which will result in forgoing the rape. Raiders will leave before it even occurs. Raiders will often kidnap colonists before attempting to rape them (very common if enough expensive pawns go down at once).

 

3) Raiders who raid long enough will often set so much on fire that it's unlikely they will even survive their own attempts at rape. If you have a pawn that's been available for 6+ game hours, and a raider finally decides to go for it, they will usually path through their own fire, resulting in them catching on fire and suffering burn damage, which precludes them from consideration of future rape.

 

Mech/Manhunter logic for rape seems to be EVEN WORSE. Rather than being properly based on sex need, it seems to just randomly happen.

 

My suggested solution?

 

Implement rape priority correctly, functioning something like the rescue/doctoring job. Give it priority over any other raider job. Make it properly react to colonist pawns being downed as an event. When the last pawn in a current area/attack goes down, all raiders in the area should receive knowledge of it, proccing an attempt to rape them before moving on further. This should also save on time spent checking recurring checks. Raiders should be pressed long enough into considering this job that they can't easily be dissuaded except for violent confrontation.

 

An alternative is to create special raiders whose job priorities don't even concern the normal ones of setting fires, attacking objects, hunting pawns, and theft. Give them a low or null point value, and special descriptions so that players know they're not priority threats. Leave the system to check them instead of all attacking raiders. Freed from the need to harm others, they simply follow a set raider leader, going after downed pawns. Free them from the limits of sex_need checking and let them rape to their heart's content. Have them take the humpshroom aphrodisiac like other raiders use yayo to bulk up their feel no pain prowess.

 

In fact, custom raids where the objective is to impregnate females and attack males are a possibility. Remove all requirements for the raiders other than destroying doors, downing pawns, and the rape job. Make the condition for completing the raid not kidnapping, damage, or theft, but simply "number of colonist pawns successfully in the pregnant condition" or simply the number of counted rapes.

 

EDIT: I understand that pawns/raiders are supposed to be representative of some real life needs and such, and realism is nice. But if realism precludes the functioning of a feature in almost its entirety, it seems to be a wash from using the mod in the first place.

 

I don't have RJW so that my colonists don't have sex and get raped. Colonists refusing random hookups with each other is probably the worst part of the mod's QoL. They will only have sex in a relationship or if you have comfort prisoners, and don't bother with random hookups based on current friendship/social/sex need? Weird.

 

I'd rather it not be some far off magical event that rarely occurs.

[weirn]

2 hours ago, dienow said:

Honestly, it seems like someone needs to fork the project and concentrate on quality of life fixes before working about future content additions. Hey, weirn: I've been doing some testing on the last version before this one regarding the statistics of how rape functions during raids, as well as target acquisition. Once I've jotted down the numbers and identified some commonalities, I'll be posting them here for review. So far, I can identify three recurring problems:

 

1) Raiders ignore downed pawns despite having the appropriate sex need. I'm looking at around 20+ raiders for a raid, with 6 easy targets within vicinity. Of that, maybe 4 rape attempts will occur during the raid, and this is only if you down every pawn at the onset of the raid.

 

2) Raiders will always choose the same target. I'm guessing this is because of the spaghetti function that determines "fuckability," which is a measure of vulnerability and such. I can predict, like clockwork, who will be attacked in a raid if everyone is downed at the same time. There is hardly ever any deviation. There is a set order.

 

3) Raiders will hardly if ever attack downed pawns at a convenient time, and the entire raid can progress without attempts being made until a magical moment where all of them occur at once. This would seem to be some tick issue with proccing an attempt, but I don't have debug info, just numbers. Average attempts so far occur usually 3+ hours after a pawn is downed. Often longer.

 

This is a bad thing from a perspective of any attempts to rape actually occurring, for the following reasons:

 

1) Raiders will never, in real time, down every pawn at once. It will be a continuous thing. Submitting pawns in a combat situation is fluid. The lack of priority for raiders to make effective use of downed pawns means that it's unlikely the stars will align and they will. OFTEN, the pawns will either be too wounded to be seen as valid targets (common) or the raiders will have a minor scratch that dissuades them from attacking (very common) because sex_satisfy will not proc if a pawn isn't in the healthy state.

 

2) Often, raiders can end up either accomplishing their objectives before proccing an attempt at rape, which will result in forgoing the rape. Raiders will leave before it even occurs. Raiders will often kidnap colonists before attempting to rape them (very common if enough expensive pawns go down at once).

 

3) Raiders who raid long enough will often set so much on fire that it's unlikely they will even survive their own attempts at rape. If you have a pawn that's been available for 6+ game hours, and a raider finally decides to go for it, they will usually path through their own fire, resulting in them catching on fire and suffering burn damage, which precludes them from consideration of future rape.

 

Mech/Manhunter logic for rape seems to be EVEN WORSE. Rather than being properly based on sex need, it seems to just randomly happen.

 

My suggested solution?

 

Implement rape priority correctly, functioning something like the rescue/doctoring job. Give it priority over any other raider job. Make it properly react to colonist pawns being downed as an event. When the last pawn in a current area/attack goes down, all raiders in the area should receive knowledge of it, proccing an attempt to rape them before moving on further. This should also save on time spent checking recurring checks. Raiders should be pressed long enough into considering this job that they can't easily be dissuaded except for violent confrontation.

 

An alternative is to create special raiders whose job priorities don't even concern the normal ones of setting fires, attacking objects, hunting pawns, and theft. Give them a low or null point value, and special descriptions so that players know they're not priority threats. Leave the system to check them instead of all attacking raiders. Freed from the need to harm others, they simply follow a set raider leader, going after downed pawns. Free them from the limits of sex_need checking and let them rape to their heart's content. Have them take the humpshroom aphrodisiac like other raiders use yayo to bulk up their feel no pain prowess.

 

In fact, custom raids where the objective is to impregnate females and attack males are a possibility. Remove all requirements for the raiders other than destroying doors, downing pawns, and the rape job. Make the condition for completing the raid not kidnapping, damage, or theft, but simply "number of colonist pawns successfully in the pregnant condition" or simply the number of counted rapes.

 

EDIT: I understand that pawns/raiders are supposed to be representative of some real life needs and such, and realism is nice. But if realism precludes the functioning of a feature in almost its entirety, it seems to be a wash from using the mod in the first place.

 

I don't have RJW so that my colonists don't have sex and get raped. Colonists refusing random hookups with each other is probably the worst part of the mod's QoL. They will only have sex in a relationship or if you have comfort prisoners, and don't bother with random hookups based on current friendship/social/sex need? Weird.

 

I'd rather it not be some far off magical event that rarely occurs.

Got it make enemies more rapey. Animals and mechanoid might be tricky, but from the looks hostile animal rape and normal breeding are different so it might be easier than I think.

 

For the most part it's updated though more work will need to be done to get bestiality to work with the colonists again. So until then the update is made though some work needs to be done to make the colonists themselves valid (basically colonists flagged for breeding has the animal walk up to them and nothing happens so it's still a bit broken). If anybody know how to fix this it would definitely help (logs work too if someone manages to get one I haven't received errors for it) download will be provided as per usual though it seems I have some work ahead of me. I do at least want the base breeding fix to be available for everyone until I figure out what is preventing the interaction from happening.

[Birdhorse]

Aha. The Job function needs pawn invocations for this use case.

 

JobDrivers\JobDriver_Breeding.cs line 76

 

Job gettin_raped = new Job(xxx.gettin_raped); 

->

Job gettin_raped = new Job(xxx.gettin_raped, Actor, Partner);

 

Seems like that should be the ticket.

[lindazana]

Yeah, the most recent version of the core seems... interesting. Lots of pluses in it, but also has some changes that really weren't needed.

"disabled ability to set designators for comfortprisoner raping and bestiality for colonists and animals"

That's the main one that has a lot of people mildly upset, and Ed showing a surprising amount of hostility to.

[red3dred]

22 minutes ago, lindazana said:

Yeah, the most recent version of the core seems... interesting. Lots of pluses in it, but also has some changes that really weren't needed.

"disabled ability to set designators for comfortprisoner raping and bestiality for colonists and animals"

That's the main one that has a lot of people mildly upset, and Ed showing a surprising amount of hostility to.

To be honest, i've yet to see a case that ISN'T praise that Ed doesn't show hostility to. Either just being cynic or shifting blame to someone else, often Zaltys.

Honestly, ED's direction is really.... not quite what i'd expect of a sensible developer. Perhaps i'm expecting them to be a sensible developer and there-in lies the issue-- anyhow, looks like Zaltys is pretty much making proper new features in secret on Git, and they maybe worth the wait and bother from ED, that is, if he's allowed to merge them...

And good grief, how come the mod became so broken? I know i said they didn't test and just handed it out, but it broke most of the mod in one fell swoop.

[dienow]

14 hours ago, weirn said:

Got it make enemies more rapey. Animals and mechanoid might be tricky, but from the looks hostile animal rape and normal breeding are different so it might be easier than I think.

I'm not sure what a proper fix would be, but rather it just seems like whatever is calling the rape driver only has a chance to call it at any given time. Usually it's 2-3+ hours before an attempt is made, but other times every available enemy will proc at once. And as I said, they will all target the same pawns based on an established order of importance. Seems like some of the easiest functional changes would be to automatically set the sex need of raiders lower automatically when they zone in; perhaps reduce the ticks required to pass by and the level of sex need required to rape on raiders; and take a look at the targeting system for acquiring downed pawns based on vulnerability, etc. Female raiders will choose female pawns to rape, disregarding male pawns being available, and I imagine this is an issue with sexual orientation not being checked/prioritized. Also, it doesn't appear that female raiders will choose vaginal intercourse with male pawns, even if you set all other options to nearly zero. This was an interesting discovery for me.

 

Appreciate you reading that big block of text!

 

Quote

And good grief, how come the mod became so broken? I know i said they didn't test and just handed it out, but it broke most of the mod in one fell swoop.

 

It doesn't look like the changes were tested, given by how easy it was to encounter the bugs. I'm honestly unsure how to proceed in the main thread, as it feels like I'm being talked over when attempting to engage ED. That was a lot to change all at once, and it's not helpful to see him try to blame Zaltys for what is, in the end, ED's choice.

 

[weirn]

On 2/24/2019 at 2:27 PM, Birdhorse said:

Aha. The Job function needs pawn invocations for this use case.

 

JobDrivers\JobDriver_Breeding.cs line 76

 

Job gettin_raped = new Job(xxx.gettin_raped); 

->

Job gettin_raped = new Job(xxx.gettin_raped, Actor, Partner);

 

Seems like that should be the ticket.

Alright I'll be trying that soon, I also am going to try out something where female animals can be set for breeding animals. I know a futa female animal can rape without a hitch in terms of what can be done so I'm going to set it up where female animals can rape as well. All I have to do was add && xxx.can_get_raped(pawn) in line 71 in pawndata.cs under common. You are definitely a big help.

 

On 2/24/2019 at 6:20 PM, dienow said:

I'm not sure what a proper fix would be, but rather it just seems like whatever is calling the rape driver only has a chance to call it at any given time. Usually it's 2-3+ hours before an attempt is made, but other times every available enemy will proc at once. And as I said, they will all target the same pawns based on an established order of importance. Seems like some of the easiest functional changes would be to automatically set the sex need of raiders lower automatically when they zone in; perhaps reduce the ticks required to pass by and the level of sex need required to rape on raiders; and take a look at the targeting system for acquiring downed pawns based on vulnerability, etc. Female raiders will choose female pawns to rape, disregarding male pawns being available, and I imagine this is an issue with sexual orientation not being checked/prioritized. Also, it doesn't appear that female raiders will choose vaginal intercourse with male pawns, even if you set all other options to nearly zero. This was an interesting discovery for me.

 

Appreciate you reading that big block of text!

 

 

It doesn't look like the changes were tested, given by how easy it was to encounter the bugs. I'm honestly unsure how to proceed in the main thread, as it feels like I'm being talked over when attempting to engage ED. That was a lot to change all at once, and it's not helpful to see him try to blame Zaltys for what is, in the end, ED's choice.

 

I checked some of it out and priority is not the issue as it turns out it has the highest priority. So other factors are definitely involved. One thing I have noted is that in the older iterations of the mod raiders and manhunters would rape at any given opportunity so I might look back on those to see what could amp up the likelihood of it happening. Vulnerability would not work since being downed usually ramps it up very high and based on what you said on female raider preference that seems already the case in terms of priority. Strange how females buttraping is still an issue, not sure why though since forced hanjobs and the like are indeed present I have had a few of those happen. I think I saw a file in charge of that though I'm not sure. What I do know is rape is based on it's own probabilities which is odd.

 

Also not a problem it is important to pay attention to what is being said. Everyone's perspective on something is important even if it comes out lengthy.

 

On 2/24/2019 at 5:16 PM, lindazana said:

Yeah, the most recent version of the core seems... interesting. Lots of pluses in it, but also has some changes that really weren't needed.

"disabled ability to set designators for comfortprisoner raping and bestiality for colonists and animals"

That's the main one that has a lot of people mildly upset, and Ed showing a surprising amount of hostility to.

On 2/24/2019 at 5:38 PM, red3dred said:

To be honest, i've yet to see a case that ISN'T praise that Ed doesn't show hostility to. Either just being cynic or shifting blame to someone else, often Zaltys.

Honestly, ED's direction is really.... not quite what i'd expect of a sensible developer. Perhaps i'm expecting them to be a sensible developer and there-in lies the issue-- anyhow, looks like Zaltys is pretty much making proper new features in secret on Git, and they maybe worth the wait and bother from ED, that is, if he's allowed to merge them...

And good grief, how come the mod became so broken? I know i said they didn't test and just handed it out, but it broke most of the mod in one fell swoop.

 

Yeah Ed is certainly..... overbearing. Honestly Zaltys puts in more work than Ed anyways, so Ed having the final say in everything seems ridiculous. Also Ed blaming Zaltys brings into question Ed's maturity. A good portion of the bugs were of Ed's own doing and we have to assume Ed determines when a new version gets released so it could have been merged and immediately released after he made any changes. I am surprised that Zaltys is willing to put up with Ed's nonsense to begin with since RJW is a community mod to begin with. I know I wouldn't tolerate Ed's behavior and honestly I don't. Kinda why I only focus on answering questions including ones in the main forum and post any successful tinkering here.

 

More importantly it does make me question how long it will keep going if Ed keeps acting like this.

 

Bear in mind what I am saying is something that I am reluctant to admit mostly, because I try to keep my two cents out of things like this but I'm making an exception because this bothers me quite a bit.

[weirn]

Alright back from some testing and found some things that can be noted. One: The game does still counts the breeder rapes on colonists. Two: Colonists get no mood related to said rape. Three: Unfortunately @Birdhorse that didn't seem to work have you found anything new pertaining to the fix for the coding? I am so far not able to tell any significant changes in the code from the older version.

[Birdhorse]

They're pathing to the target and then the breed toil is failing, yes? What I mentioned is the only recent change to the job init function.

Other cases to look at would be the GettinRaped JobDriver since that's called for the victim and I suppose if it failed that'd have the same result, but I don't see any changes that would break that there either.

All I know is, it works in my local codebase.

[Jackal1]

So I encountered a bug, when an undead risen by a necromancer gets the quirk Sapiosexual the game keeps spamming traits that I do not have installed. Here is the log https://gist.github.com/HugsLibRecordKeeper/e9cd52a63c3fe82cf8dad22b6ef625a6.

[DanteGX]

may be Im slow to understand but reading the post don't solved my doubt about the installation, when I unzip the folder on the mod folder I have both rjw_1.9.0c and RJW_1.9.5B2.1_Weirn's_Standalone so wen I go in game it shows me on the mod menu that there are tow versions of the same mod, which one should I use? and if I use yours instead of the other I gonna lose some features or not?

[rallyelgen]

On 5/19/2019 at 8:00 AM, DanteGX said:

may be Im slow to understand but reading the post don't solved my doubt about the installation, when I unzip the folder on the mod folder I have both rjw_1.9.0c and RJW_1.9.5B2.1_Weirn's_Standalone so wen I go in game it shows me on the mod menu that there are tow versions of the same mod, which one should I use? and if I use yours instead of the other I gonna lose some features or not?

It seems to work as a patch... if you already have RJW just copy/replace ...

I have not found what base RJW version this is made of, so that would be interesting to know.

[ksoif]

Has anyone tried this on version 1.2?