Page 1 of 1

Violet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:11 am
by exitzero
So I was messing around in Test realm, camping on level 2 for the majority of the round, and my character got married to Violet on December 16. Marriage lasted 37 days (until game was reset) So basically Violet didn't divorce me the entire time. At one point I had over 27 kids, before I started to level up and they started suiciding to random monsters I was fighting in the forest.

This made me to wonder... was it just a huge incredible coincidence that Violet didn't divorce me the entire time, or did it have to do with something of me perhaps being level 2? Or perhaps because my charm was greater than everyone else's in the realm?

Or was it just a huge coincidence? I was amazed... I had never seen Violet married to someone that long before. (37 days)

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:20 am
by tomal
Mavericks marriage to her in red realm was pretty long too, while in green she divorced both Tthree and me the next day. Maverick had most charm in the realm. I didn't. Not sure but I think Tthree didn't either.

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:06 pm
by falknhayn
There is a 1/5 chance of being divorced every day.

Charm has no affect on the result.

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:45 pm
by exitzero
Wow, thats nuts... have you/anyone ever seen a marriage to Violet/Seth last over 37 days before? At one point I was having nearly 75 forest fights a day from all the children I had. Granted it was test realm with 10 or so additional forest fights to start with, but still, it was a cool thing to see :o

I'm wondering if I may have broke a record of some sort, haha :shock:

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:55 am
by Cocacola
I've had a number of long marriages to violet, and in all cases my charm was well over 110.

This bit about charm having nothing to do with it is sheer nonsense!

Just because something is supposed to be a certain way doesn't mean that it is. This reminds me of the endless arguments I had with people who insisted that you really do get 1 thief use for every 4 skill points, like the game docs say when anyone who has bothered to check knows it is 1 for every 5.

BTW, look how long I was married to violet in game 2 on Stabs before it was reset. :)!

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:02 am
by exitzero
Falk probably looked at the source code itself at some point though, at least in the LORD version we use anyway...

I was just wondering if maybe it was somewhere in the code where it guaranteed no divorces for some reason, such as charm, or even a low level with no DKs.

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:57 pm
by falknhayn
Cocacola wrote:This bit about charm having nothing to do with it is sheer nonsense!


But I read it in a FAQ on your site, so it must be true

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:13 am
by the mystical one
Nah, falk is exactly right. That's how the divorce check works.

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:09 pm
by Cocacola
falknhayn wrote:
Cocacola wrote:This bit about charm having nothing to do with it is sheer nonsense!


But I read it in a FAQ on your site, so it must be true



Really? I said in rare circumstances marriages last 2 weeks or more, I didn't claim charm had nothing to do with it. The one thing those long marriages all seem to have in common is that the player has a charm 110 or more.

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:16 pm
by falknhayn
Cocacola wrote:
falknhayn wrote:
Cocacola wrote:This bit about charm having nothing to do with it is sheer nonsense!


But I read it in a FAQ on your site, so it must be true



Really? I said in rare circumstances marriages last 2 weeks or more, I didn't claim charm had nothing to do with it. The one thing those long marriages all seem to have in common is that the player has a charm 110 or more.


I was just kidding about the faq

any answers I give about game logic come from tmo's disassembly of the lord binary.

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:55 pm
by Cocacola
falknhayn wrote:
Cocacola wrote:
falknhayn wrote:[This bit about charm having nothing to do with it is sheer nonsense!


But I read it in a FAQ on your site, so it must be true





I was just kidding about the faq

any answers I give about game logic come from tmo's disassembly of the lord binary.



So you admit it is a disassemby not the original source code so he could have missed something.

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:14 pm
by falknhayn
Cocacola wrote:So you admit it is a disassemby not the original source code so he could have missed something.


Weow

Re: Violet

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:32 am
by the mystical one
Cocacola wrote:So you admit it is a disassemby not the original source code so he could have missed something.


If I had the original source code, I could have missed something too!

But I am 99.999% sure I didn't in this case, because assembly isn't that much harder to understand than pascal and I went over that section many times to be sure of what I was transcribing.