Chat. I don't think were getting a 1.5

mlie needs to make this for 1.3

realistically a psychopath can feel sad if someone close to them dies..

@Mlie OMG i love u! this romance bullshit is the biggest bullshit in this game. ive already lost games, bc someone went berserk bc his crush said 4 times no

Made an update of this for RimWorld 1.1
https://steamproxy.net/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2014603702
Hope it helps anyone!

Author quit the game.. hopefully someone who knows how to mod will update this for us :(

will we get a 1.1 version？

update please!

Are you planning to update to 1.1?

Also sibling relationships. Heh

@pelador I agree. I want more in-depth relationships please!!! STDs, Condoms, Casual sex, more emotion!

Q: Is this compatible with Rational Romance?

I have to ask, because it sounds like Rational Romance borrows "code bits and/or ideas" from this...

@Dazz Aephiex AAHAHA

"fixed psychopath by the way" right after talking about fixing gays, HAHA

And here I'm just wanting a no breakup mod, worse enough in real life but to have it in rimworld too? Enough is enough man :'( Can someone please think of the non-existent children?!

@pelador there is a mod that adds all that it’s called rimjob ( a mod you can’t find here )

Q1: who know? I could be a better guy than her man
Q2: she will give in if I persist enough
Q3: maybe I will get a better chance with another girl

I will take your mod for the psychopath fix

@Dazz Aephix
:-(

No idea. I'm virgin. :-(

With promiscous relationship events like affairs you'd think the game would introduce STDs and condoms?

Maybe even casual sex events for none married pawns perhaps? This I would consider as not being an amoral position if the negative connotations like not getting so much of a got some lovin bonus but also perhaps lowering of opnion to all the other pawns in the colony.

You could even include traits associated with promiscuity and family values to help associate with these kind of events and appropriate individual responses.

pls fix for 1.0, its trying to run on an earlier version of hugslib that is no longer used...

psycholgy dosent have less stuped romance attenpts
and I think this mod could improove that in psychology
if only you could chang it so that it works with the kinsey scale that would be so cool~ ^ ^

do you think its posseble to make it compatibile with Psycholgy?
this mod dose have the good.
but psycholgy also has the good

well question 1 i actually did IRL and so far so good ish

Unrealistic mod. Makes pawns smarter than real humans.

Given that this mod was last updated back in June, it probably doesn't work with the actual RimWorld 1.0 release, but rather, was designed for the unstable 1.0 that existed prior to the game's b19 release.

However, the changes that this mod makes to the game's romance system are all incorporated in my Rational Romance mod, so feel free to give it a try.

And the changes it makes to fix the psychopath trait have all been incorporated in SheiFoxy's Grim Reality mod.

I dont belive this is compatable with 1.0, the game just disable all my mods after i restarted after including this one.

I would like to know as well, if this is for 1.0.

does it work for 1.0?

yes, i definitely needed this.

*Lifts and lowers eyebrows towards signifigant other* Did you know, I know a lot about rice?
*Romance attempt failed.*

@Diana it's actually requesting a 0.18 version of HugsLib from what I can tell, and alien races uses 1.0 of HugsLib, so that's where the problem is. This mod isn't for 1.0, clearly.

Try this one instead:

https://steamproxy.net/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1543164506&searchtext=%5BRF%5D+Rational+Romance+%5B1.0%5D

Does the same and the author is active.

His mod is just released for 1.0.

Released today in fact 20th Oct,

Tried loading this up by itself and with only core/hugs and it crashes for incompatible etc

This mod seems to be causing a ton of errors, potentially incompatable with alien races? Not entirely sure, I'm not in the mood to do extensive testing :p

1.0 is out and I just tried firing it up, with only 1.0 mods.
I get a page of errors from your mod unfortunately, starting with "unable to load harmony"

Hi, I have had a message telling me there's a incompatibility with another mod, and as I suspected it, there's a conflict with the mod "better social skills" (I tried to activate only your mod and this one...). So bad :'(

Is there a B19 version? Psychology is way too much for me and I just want my pawns to NOT BE STUPID. ;-;

It's marked 1.0, but that may be from the unstable 1.0 version before B19. Does it work for the final 1.0 on the current unstable branch?

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=45988.0

I have an idea for a mod that I think will add a lot to the game, but I do not have the know-how to create it. Please contact me.

thank you for this.

It's understandable that one will eat their hated food if nothing else is available.

I don't know if one will cheat if their current lover isn't with them, that depends on the person. This mod is meant to reduce stupid romance attempt, and control over homosexuality and psychopath fixes were done "by the way", rather than making it a realistic romance simulator. I hate it when my pawns are doing something stupid and outraged due to nothing important. This mod prevented the romance related negative mood modifiers from stacking layers and layers.

Current control over homosexuality is actually going against this propose, but pawns are already very few likely to perform romance attempt if the target isn't their ideal gender in vanilla.

Related to points 2 and 3, in addition to blocking such attempts, is it possible to make pawns transfer their romantic aspirations onto a second choice who is single? Especially if they would have romanced that person if the partnered-up pawn was not in the colony.

I do not know/understand how the game implements relationships, but relating to sexuality, I suggest the following as possible replacements for the changes above:
- Making the buffs from engaging in lovin' that is with someone who is not of a pawn's naturally preferred choice (Non-gay ♂; Gay ♂ and lesbian ♀ etc.) be less (75%? 50%?). Specific example: in a lesbian/non-lesbian relationship, the lesbian would get the full buff, the non-lesbian would get the reduced buff.
- Non-gay identified pawns will not propose marriage if in a same-sex relationship.
- Non-gay identified pawns will not accept a marriage proposal from a same-sex partner.
- Non-gay identified pawns are slightly more likely to break-off a same-sex relationship versus a opposite gender one.
- Non-gay identified pawns are slightly more likely cheat if in a same-sex relationship versus a opposite gender one.

The desire humans have for some "lovin'" often overrides otherwise typical sexual orientation in restricted choice situations. In addition, human sexuality does not come in a mutually-exclusive duality but rather in a continuous spectrum heavily skewed towards heterosexuality. Furthermore human lovin' is not restricted to inserting body parts of one partner into a body hole of the other partner. In restricted choice situations many men do not consider engaging in mutual solo-lovin' a threat to their ego and an improvement over solo-lovin' alone. I therefore disagree with the final two changes. The comment about women in the third point is less offensive if one were to reinterpret it in terms of ego; but, like all sweeping generalizations it is not applicable to all.

Yes

@Edelweiß And less likely to court men?

"All women are potential lesbians" - This is a cultural thing for US. In countries where same-sex relationships are more taboo (which it should) women do not flirt with each other.

If you want assymmetry between the sexes - make women more likely to rebuff than men.

"Non-gay ♂ cannot court ♂, and vice versa. This isn't applied to ♀, because as far as I can concern, ALL WOMAN ARE POTENTIAL LESBIANS"

LMAO I havnt laughed this hard in a long time.

Hmmm. I think there are multiple reasons, why the conclusions of that study dont really make sense. But I dont want to argue that here. Dont you think this has a different background than who you want to be in a relationship with?
Well.. At least now I understand whay you chose to distinguish between them ;)