A Feminine Touch


Hallowisp

Recommended Posts

In my journeys through the post-apocalyptic Canadian wilderness, I keep wondering why every single corpse I come across is male. Did all the women mysteriously evaporate? Are they alive and kicking, hiding out in a magical hidden valley somewhere? There is evidence of children at the farmhouse in Pleasant Valley. Presumably, at least one woman produced them at some point!

I'd also love to see more female deer (elk?). The only ones I've come across so far are frozen and dead. ): All the deer (elk) that I hunt have quite an impressive rack (no, not THAT kind).

This is just a silly thing, but I've noticed a very particular clothing item missing from the game: a bra! I shudder to think of all the jogging and mountain-hopping I do without one. Don't know if it would offer much warmth but at the very least, it would be a welcome +1 unit of cloth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 to the bra.

Even the male avatar should be able to wear it for a small temperature bonus. But if ever the morale bar gets added, wearing the bra gives a severe penalty. To the male avatar only, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could have the Cotton Long Underwear and cotton bra together as one unit

You could have the wool Long Underwear and wool bra together as one unit

and if you are playing the male character he will simply just discard the bra.

and yes +1 on female corpses

The only female deer with antlers are reindeer (caribou)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer

Antlers

Caribou have the distinction of being the sole deer species in which male and female specimens alike are equipped with antlers. Although lots of female caribou sport antlers, exceptions do exist. You might be able to tell that a caribou is female simply by her lack of antlers. When female caribou do have antlers, they're generally nowhere near as big as the males' antlers. Male antlers also aren't as linear in growth as female antlers. The season also can assist in identifying gender. While male caribou lose their antlers in the winter, the females keep theirs all through the season into the spring. This helps expectant female caribou forage on the ground amidst all of the heavy snow and ice often covering everything.

http://animals.pawnation.com/distinguis ... -7715.html

So it could be that all the caribous in the game are females. I say we should demand more male caribous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long underwear renders all other underwear obsolete. In these temperatures, other types of underwear would be lethal. Besides, the concept of adding a bra "for feminine reasons" whilst adding nothing to the game is ridiculous, and will result in nothing but contention amongst the fanbase.

Currently all corpses are male because they are placeholders for later developments. the game is still under development, and the devs are working on more important aspects of the game than the equal distribution of genders amongst the dead.

There will undoubtedly be females later on in the games development, but until all the hard coding is done and the raw mechanics of the game are finished, it is not an immediate concern.

Currently The player plays as a formless entity that roams the cold wastes of the northern territories. The only reason you know which gender it is is based on which voice actor you chose at the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long underwear renders all other underwear obsolete. In these temperatures, other types of underwear would be lethal. Besides, the concept of adding a bra "for feminine reasons" whilst adding nothing to the game is ridiculous, and will result in nothing but contention amongst the fanbase.

Currently all corpses are male because they are placeholders for later developments. the game is still under development, and the devs are working on more important aspects of the game than the equal distribution of genders amongst the dead.

There will undoubtedly be females later on in the games development, but until all the hard coding is done and the raw mechanics of the game are finished, it is not an immediate concern.

Currently The player plays as a formless entity that roams the cold wastes of the northern territories. The only reason you know which gender it is is based on which voice actor you chose at the start.

You shouldn't be too serious here. I wasn't really advocating the introduction of bras, and I don't think anyone else has the intention of doing so. Bras would only cause confusion and not add any value to gameplay. But bras are always an inspiration for jokes... 8-)

These days, I met an old friend from school I hadn't seen in a long time. When we were having a beer, I suddenly realized that he was wearing a bra. "Since when are you wearing a bra?", I asked. And he rolled his eyes and whispered, "Ever since my wife discovered it in my car!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never underestimate a guy's desire to wear a bra... :D

[bBvideo 560,340:1n54vyca]

[/bBvideo]

PS: Anna is already wearing a bra & panties for sure. Just because we don't have the option to take those off doesn't mean that she doesn't. She's just a bit shy and doesn't want to undress completely. I mean you never know who's sitting in front of the monitor, do you? Wise girl! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to clarify a few things:

1. This was a humorous post. The game has little elements of tongue-in-cheek humor that I appreciate (such as the item descriptions, and books that you can burn but not read). I think a bra would be a fun item specifically because of that humor style.

2. I'm new to the game and to the forums. I have no idea what is or isn't planned. Whether or not something is in development, every time it's asked for, that's more information for the devs.

3. I doubt anyone is asking or expecting the devs to put foundational system design on hold for fluff items. I'm sure everyone here understand why this board is called a "wish list" and not a "give me this nao or gone 4ever!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u really wants an explanation for the lack of female corpses one could be that females are more important for the continuation of the human race than males, so if there had been an effort whos purpose was to transport people to a safezone they would have taken a lot of females and only a few males.

So what is left behind is a lot of males. You also often hear "children and women first" when u see movies etc. Its the same principle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u really wants an explanation for the lack of female corpses one could be that females are more important for the continuation of the human race than males, so if there had been an effort whos purpose was to transport people to a safezone they would have taken a lot of females and only a few males.

So what is left behind is a lot of males. You also often hear "children and women first" when u see movies etc. Its the same principle

That whole "women and children first!" thing hasn't happened for a while now. The "official policy" of emergency responders is to evacuate whole families first, as a unit, then single people.

And besides, even with the loss of electricity, the whole of the human race is not confined to Northern Canada. It is eminently possible to survive without electricity almost worldwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u really wants an explanation for the lack of female corpses one could be that females are more important for the continuation of the human race than males, so if there had been an effort whos purpose was to transport people to a safezone they would have taken a lot of females and only a few males.

So what is left behind is a lot of males. You also often hear "children and women first" when u see movies etc. Its the same principle

That whole "women and children first!" thing hasn't happened for a while now. The "official policy" of emergency responders is to evacuate whole families first, as a unit, then single people.

Oh thats cool to hear. What event that put the continuation of the human race into question do you have in mind of recent times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u really wants an explanation for the lack of female corpses one could be that females are more important for the continuation of the human race than males, so if there had been an effort whos purpose was to transport people to a safezone they would have taken a lot of females and only a few males.

So what is left behind is a lot of males. You also often hear "children and women first" when u see movies etc. Its the same principle

Actually without a male, humans are doomed just as much as without a female. There is a reason why the gender distribution is approximately 50-50. The whole "women and children first" protocol was designed because men were expected to be the protectors of the family, to the point where they were to give their own life to preserve the rest of the family unit.

And who said anything about the continuation of the human species being a high priority? Last I checked, there were

7.3 billion humans on the planet. continuation of the species is a non-issue at this moment in time.

Besides, who needs to evacuate in the milder climes to the south? In the new york area, a lot of the steam systems will still be operating, so the city will still have heating. I highly doubt that the geomagnetic event means the end of the human race. Not all of our technology is electricity dependent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u really wants an explanation for the lack of female corpses one could be that females are more important for the continuation of the human race than males, so if there had been an effort whos purpose was to transport people to a safezone they would have taken a lot of females and only a few males.

So what is left behind is a lot of males. You also often hear "children and women first" when u see movies etc. Its the same principle

Actually without a male, humans are doomed just as much as without a female. There is a reason why the gender distribution is approximately 50-50. The whole "women and children first" protocol was designed because men were expected to be the protectors of the family, to the point where they were to give their own life to preserve the rest of the family unit.

And who said anything about the continuation of the human species being a high priority? Last I checked, there were

7.3 billion humans on the planet. continuation of the species is a non-issue at this moment in time.

Besides, who needs to evacuate in the milder climes to the south? In the new york area, a lot of the steam systems will still be operating, so the city will still have heating. I highly doubt that the geomagnetic event means the end of the human race. Not all of our technology is electricity dependent.

Pretty much.

People forget that electricity really only came into play about 150 years ago. Before then, humanity had organized states, intercontinental trade, industrialization, all that.

Really, any people further south than 45N degrees Latitude will be fine. Hell, even a little bit north of that (AKA most of populated Canada) will be ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u really wants an explanation for the lack of female corpses one could be that females are more important for the continuation of the human race than males, so if there had been an effort whos purpose was to transport people to a safezone they would have taken a lot of females and only a few males.

So what is left behind is a lot of males. You also often hear "children and women first" when u see movies etc. Its the same principle

Actually without a male, humans are doomed just as much as without a female. There is a reason why the gender distribution is approximately 50-50. The whole "women and children first" protocol was designed because men were expected to be the protectors of the family, to the point where they were to give their own life to preserve the rest of the family unit.

No if you have 48 females and 2 males its much better than 25 females and 25 males

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No if you have 48 females and 2 males its much better than 25 females and 25 males

Those numbers won't work for humans for sure.

What you said, would be right for animals that have two characteristics:

A) genetical stability with little or no recessive diseases in the gene pool - inbreeding will cause a long-term disaster otherwise

and B) willingness to mate without caring about anything else

Point A doesn't apply to humans. Many of us carry (often without knowing) alleles for recessive phenotypes or diseases, that's why marrying your own mother, sister or cousin is really a bad idea in terms of genetics. Only two males might thus lead to a disaster in the long run. Make your numbers 20 males and 80 females, and humanity MIGHT have a chance, just from a genetical point of view.

Regarding point B: I dare to doubt that 48 females would agree to "share" two males. (At least if they were raised in a culture that opposes polygamy.) Even if they tried to get along with the situation for the sake of humanity, it would most likely lead to unlimited bitching, lots of hurt feelings, terrible drama and most of the women either forming a separate group or lying dead on the floor.^^

If you want a both genetically AND psychologicially stable population, families are really the better choice to save. Alternatively 100 females, a liquid nitrogen freezer and a lot of sperm donations. Just kiddin'. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of crafting, I think adding in bra's would be fine. We could break them down in wire, elastic, cloth and cordage. Why would that be a bad thing? Says the last guy, living at the end of the world who might wear them as a head piece...

WeirdScience1.jpg

or as a poor man balaclava.

Emergency%20Bra_604x341.JPG

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No if you have 48 females and 2 males its much better than 25 females and 25 males

Those numbers won't work for humans for sure.

What you said, would be right for animals that have two characteristics:

A) genetical stability with little or no recessive diseases in the gene pool - inbreeding will cause a long-term disaster otherwise

and B) willingness to mate without caring about anything else

Point A doesn't apply to humans. Many of us carry (often without knowing) alleles for recessive phenotypes or diseases, that's why marrying your own mother, sister or cousin is really a bad idea in terms of genetics. Only two males might thus lead to a disaster in the long run. Make your numbers 20 males and 80 females, and humanity MIGHT have a chance, just from a genetical point of view.

Regarding point B: I dare to doubt that 48 females would agree to "share" two males. (At least if they were raised in a culture that opposes polygamy.) Even if they tried to get along with the situation for the sake of humanity, it would most likely lead to unlimited bitching, lots of hurt feelings, terrible drama and most of the women either forming a separate group or lying dead on the floor.^^

If you want a both genetically AND psychologicially stable population, families are really the better choice to save. Alternatively 100 females, a liquid nitrogen freezer and a lot of sperm donations. Just kiddin'. ;)

Your point A also applies to a population of 25 males and 25 females, so that argument is invalid.

By implementing a unique standardization procedure to make reported MVPs (Minimum viable population) comparable, we were able to derive a cross-species frequency distribution of MVP with a median of 4169 individuals (95% CI = 3577–5129)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0707002534

And nonhuman animals does also carry degenerated genes (or whatever you wanna call it)

Regarding point B: Just remember sharing is caring - there are lots of people out there who lives within an open relationship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_relationship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_anarchy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No if you have 48 females and 2 males its much better than 25 females and 25 males

Those numbers won't work for humans for sure.

What you said, would be right for animals that have two characteristics:

A) genetical stability with little or no recessive diseases in the gene pool - inbreeding will cause a long-term disaster otherwise

and B) willingness to mate without caring about anything else

Point A doesn't apply to humans. Many of us carry (often without knowing) alleles for recessive phenotypes or diseases, that's why marrying your own mother, sister or cousin is really a bad idea in terms of genetics. Only two males might thus lead to a disaster in the long run. Make your numbers 20 males and 80 females, and humanity MIGHT have a chance, just from a genetical point of view.

Regarding point B: I dare to doubt that 48 females would agree to "share" two males. (At least if they were raised in a culture that opposes polygamy.) Even if they tried to get along with the situation for the sake of humanity, it would most likely lead to unlimited bitching, lots of hurt feelings, terrible drama and most of the women either forming a separate group or lying dead on the floor.^^

If you want a both genetically AND psychologicially stable population, families are really the better choice to save. Alternatively 100 females, a liquid nitrogen freezer and a lot of sperm donations. Just kiddin'. ;)

I do believe the "population required" for a stable genetic variance is about 200 individuals short-term, and a couple of thousand long-term. Any less than that and you start to interbreed a couple of generations in....

And, who says the human race is in any danger of extinction, just because electricity doesn't work? We have lived for 200,000+ years before electricity, with planet-spanning empires and industrialized cities. Besdies, for all we know, the "geomagnectic event" could right itself within a couple of years, and everything would be back to normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I was talking about autosomal recessive disorders in "natural" populations only, I should have clarified that maybe.

Your point A also applies to a population of 25 males and 25 females, so that argument is invalid.

With all due respect, my argument isn't invalid at all. I was thinking about inbreeding depression and bottleneck effects. ;)

The probability that the grandchildren (F3) of the female1xmale1-children and the female2xmale2-children are going to have the SAME two recessive alleles (=phenotypical disease outbreak) is way higher if there are only two males at the beginning.

Think about it: While the F1 generation in your 2-48 example still can mate with non-related persons, the F2-generation has no choice but to inbreed with their own cousins which is likely to cause an accumulation of "defective" alleles in F3. The first phenotypically ill individuals might appear in F3 (worst case) or F4 (more likely) and the number of people affected in further generations would probably be considerable. (This phenomenon is called inbreeding depression and occurs in populations with a low genetic diversity).

If you have more than two males in G0 (=higher male starting population genetic diversity), F2 won't have to inbreed with their cousins as there are still non-related partners (grandchildren of male3 and female3) available.

Just as a sidenote: If you start with 3 males, F3 has to inbreed - if you start with 10 males, only F10 has to. And 10th grade cousin marriages aren't a problem. Most Europeans and Americans are probably some kind of 15th grade cousins. xD

Of course inbreeding depression also occurs in most animal populations, I never said anything else.

That's just why most animals don't mate with their siblings or other close relatives if they have a choice. (Please don't post exceptions now, I know plenty of them exist, but they're not the rule x-x').

I just mentioned it because there are some species (and also laboratory mice strains) that don't suffer from inbreeding at all because they hardly have "defective" alleles. They are the obligatory exception to the rule.

Regarding point B: Just remember sharing is caring - there are lots of people out there who lives within an open relationship

That's nice for these people, but again: It's not the rule for the majority of women out there.

If your hypothetical "save humanity" population consists of 48 genetically "perfect", promiscuous and peace-loving women and 2 genetically "perfect", promiscuous and peace-loving men, it could of course be stable. I totally admit that. :)

But you can't just say any group of 48 women and 2 men are as stable as a family population in general. At least it's going to be much easier to find some families. ;)

I do believe the "population required" for a stable genetic variance is about 200 individuals short-term, and a couple of thousand long-term. Any less than that and you start to interbreed a couple of generations in....

You can use mathematical models to calculate the minimum viable population size of a species, but they're complicated and need to be adjusted for each particular species separately. :)

However, one of my profs once told us a rule of thumb how many individuals you need to save a (vertebrate) species' genetic diversity:

- 100 individuals in captivity if you plan and control mating

- 1000 individuals in captivity if you let them mate as they like

- 10000 individuals in the wild (where they die because of predators/diseases, etc. and also mate as they like)

You can of course also save ("preserve" would probably be a better term) a species with smaller starting populations, though. It was done with some species like the bali myna or european bison already. But these preserved species now lack genetic diversity and are thus still in danger to become extinct, even though their numbers increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A researcher by the name of Moore came up with 160 (80 men, 80 women) as a good number to start a colony for interstellar travel that may take hundreds of years. This number, with careful planning, could avoid inbreeding for two thousand years, or 60 to 80 generations. This assumes people did not undertake reproduction at a young age, thus extending the length of a typical generation from twenty years to thirty or forty years.

One problem with small populations is that the expected 50:50 ratio of male and female children isn't a certainty. Excess male children can seriously crimp population growth, as you've already discovered if you've ever played Banished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I was talking about autosomal recessive disorders in "natural" populations only, I should have clarified that maybe.
Your point A also applies to a population of 25 males and 25 females, so that argument is invalid.

With all due respect, my argument isn't invalid at all. I was thinking about inbreeding depression and bottleneck effects. ;)

The probability that the grandchildren (F3) of the female1xmale1-children and the female2xmale2-children are going to have the SAME two recessive alleles (=phenotypical disease outbreak) is way higher if there are only two males at the beginning.

Think about it: While the F1 generation in your 2-48 example still can mate with non-related persons, the F2-generation has no choice but to inbreed with their own cousins which is likely to cause an accumulation of "defective" alleles in F3.

Ok then think about this you have a 25x25 population on one side of a river and on the other side of the river u have a 2x48 population. And because the river is big it cant be crossed.

Then 100 years down in time a big cliff collapses and now the river can be crossed so a war begins between these 2 populations because for some odd reason they are unable to coexist in peace. Who do you think will win the war?

http://i60.tinypic.com/ksq6h.png

Lets say every woman in her lifetime gets 5 children it seems high but then again if you are the only one alive it should not be a problem. And lets say every new generation has a 1:1 distribution between females and males. And then say in the 4th generation 50% of the 2x48 population has some problem with their genes, then they would still be able to muster a ~300 sized bigger healthy army (cell C11). And also the G1 will either be too old or have died so they cant join the army.

So its 1590+(reserves) vs 1219

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.