AAAARRRRGH!
Why? It's so inconvenient to force people to log in and hunt for it, there.
Yes, I know, those 10 seconds it takes to do that are so inconvenient.
AAAARRRRGH!
Why? It's so inconvenient to force people to log in and hunt for it, there.
The real inconvenience is that people are less likely to find it to begin with.Yes, I know, those 10 seconds it takes to do that are so inconvenient.
It's not a matter of the time, it's a matter of security settings. Some people have to use secure and semi-secure computers on a regular basis at work. If a site isn't completely prohibited, you might be allowed to view it on some machines, but can't send any information, or accept the cookies required to log in, etc. If you can log in to a site, you may not be allowed to stay logged in (meaning you have to log-in, again, every 10 minutes or so). Why limit or deny these people access for most of their day?Yes, I know, those 10 seconds it takes to do that are so inconvenient.
Won't even look for it, if they are just passing by, or just here to investigate the game. Only existing, registered CK2 customers can even see that a FAQ sub-forum is there. A potentially powerful marketing tool that YOU have provided for Paradox, free of charge (I assume), has been buried and effectively nerfed.The real inconvenience is that people are less likely to find it to begin with.
Again, not clearly labeled at all. Not even visible, unless you're a logged-in, registered customer, who probably already knows how to play the game. I guess new users might still benefit, if they register and bother to hunt around. But someone trying to decide whether the game is for them can't see the most useful thread there is (excuse me... was). Potential new customers can go f*** themselves, I guess.Then again, I find it a bit hard to sympathize with someone if they cannot find the rather clearly labeled 'FAQ' section.
Wow, didn't know that. I assumed it was, like the User Modifications visible but un-enterable.Not even visible, unless you're a logged-in, registered customer, who probably already knows how to play the game.
lcnmdgkkpaf mother
ioejdhgkenp father
+ +|*+|* |+
ijejdhkkmap genius
mjpdmkihmgm mother
ojadjkhmanj father
+*+*|*+ |||
ojajmkhamgm genius
lcnmdgkkpaf mother
ljofnhekpgd father
* +|+||**||
loomngkkpaf inbred abomination
Will do once I've finalized it. I think I might write a final installment this weekend.@Meneth: Can you please include the text for the links in your Guide. I don't have access to the Guide in the FAQ section and subsequently, I don't also have the links that are in your text. Please include them underneath if you can. Thanks
... Remember to do me an Introduction, and include it with the rest. Thanks again.
No way except copy-pasting AFAIK.1) Is there any way to quote from the guide? You can't just cut and paste out of "reply with quote" since the FAQ forum is restricted.
I'll get that corrected.2) The section on DNA in the eugenics guide is a little misleading, in particular this part: "It can be assumed that the worst of the congenital traits only become common when many letters of DNA are shared, while the most positive congenital traits are at the other end of the spectrum.
As every character has eleven letters of DNA, it is reasonable to assume that five are taken from the father, five from the mother, and one is random."
Both of these assumptions are incorrect, or at least in need of qualification. Below is the DNA for 3 parent-child groups. The first 2 children are geniuses; the third is inbred. Between the parents and the child, I've marked where each letter in the child's DNA comes from. Letters passed from the mother to the child are marked |, from the father to the child +, from both parents with *, and random letters are indicated by a blank.
We see the first child has 2 random letters, 3 maternal letters, 4 paternal letters, and 2 common letters; the second child has 1 random letter, 4 maternal letters, 3 paternal letters, and 3 common letters; the third has 1 random letter, 5 maternal letters, 2 paternal letters, and 3 common ones.Code:lcnmdgkkpaf mother ioejdhgkenp father + +|*+|* |+ ijejdhkkmap genius mjpdmkihmgm mother ojadjkhmanj father +*+*|*+ ||| ojajmkhamgm genius lcnmdgkkpaf mother ljofnhekpgd father * +|+||**|| loomngkkpaf inbred abomination
The first example shows that DNA is not simply 5 from each parent and 1 random letter. Perhaps that is the norm, but in some cases there can be multiple random letters. I've also seen cases where there is no clearly random letter, although this of course could just be chance (the random letter being the same as one of the parents). I have not seen any cases of more than 2 random letters, or cases where one parent contributed more than 5 letters.
You have a point. Problem is that if that is indeed not the way it works, we're pretty much left with nothing but complete randomness.Altogether the examples suggest that positive and negative traits may not be straightforwardly linked the number of shared DNA letters. The inbred character did have a high number of shared letters, but the geniuses also had 2 and 3 shared letters. Again, this could be chance; perhaps they got very lucky, but it suggests that lower is not simply better for positive congenital traits. Note, I have seen geniuses with no common letters, so it doesn't suggest that common letters are necessary.
You have a point. Problem is that if that is indeed not the way it works, we're pretty much left with nothing but complete randomness.
Almost no one has any of the positive congenital traits at the start, especially genius, so that's unlikely. I'm pretty sure they can appear out of nowhere.I'm wondering if the negative traits are tied to shared letters, but the positive traits aren't. I've looked at a few more inbred children and their parents all have 3+ common letters. It's a small sample, but it suggests 3 common letters puts you a risk of inbred.
As for the positive traits, perhaps they are simply based on parents/grandparents having the trait?
Where can I get this PDF?