Rape bots

[Peksa]

As far as I know, info shots set their values *after* DNA execution. So, if a bot has .fertilized another one and the next cycle shoots an info shot that forces .sexrepro, there is no defence against it, is there? 0 .sexrepro store doesn't help becouse, the info shot overwrites that store.

Doesn't that make a rape bot a bit too powerful for leagues? Remember that if there's no common DNA, there's 50-50 chance of the new bot getting all of the rapists DNA. A good example of this is Moonfisher's Lovebot.

[Numsgil]

That's been my thinking as well.  It's one thing to rape another bot and get a hybrid, but it's quite another to rape another bot and get a clone of yourself.  Not sure I have any good solutions, though.

[EricL]

Poison will stop info shots.  A reasonable defense is to make poison when you become fertilized.

[Numsgil]

Even beyond just F1 issues, from a nature standpoint unlike animals can mate, but the result doesn't get very far in the gestation process.  This is partly because animals are diploid, and the cross over event occurs not between the two animals, but between the two strands in both parents.  Darwinbots switches this around since our bots are haploid, but then we have problems with unlike bots mating to produce a clone randomly of either parent.  Which is clearly an artifact of our system and not something that mirrors real life.

Maybe something as simple as a % difference between the two parents' DNA.  (ie: number of "zipped up" places / longest DNA length).  If it's sufficiently low (ie: 5% or something), then the union fails.  I'm not a fan of hard and fast constants like this, but I think we need something.  It's one thing to mate with something and produce a sterile, stupid, hybrid.  It's quite another to mate with something like a veg and produce a clone of yourself with veg status.

[gymsum]

Even beyond just F1 issues, from a nature standpoint unlike animals can mate, but the result doesn't get very far in the gestation process.  This is partly because animals are diploid, and the cross over event occurs not between the two animals, but between the two strands in both parents.  Darwinbots switches this around since our bots are haploid, but then we have problems with unlike bots mating to produce a clone randomly of either parent.  Which is clearly an artifact of our system and not something that mirrors real life.

Maybe something as simple as a % difference between the two parents' DNA.  (ie: number of "zipped up" places / longest DNA length).  If it's sufficiently low (ie: 5% or something), then the union fails.  I'm not a fan of hard and fast constants like this, but I think we need something.  It's one thing to mate with something and produce a sterile, stupid, hybrid.  It's quite another to mate with something like a veg and produce a clone of yourself with veg status.

I think there is already an inherent deturant of such crosses, as the mutation results in broken code. Often than not, the sexrepro has to be changed externally, so I say maxvel when impregnated if your a veggie. Also, from what I understood the DNA was speperated from both parents, mutated through enzyme interactions/failures, and then recombined randomly, that does seem to be how real life mating occurs, except we lack chromosomes for easier things for say, dominance, recessiveness or even chromosomal redundancy. I dont think crosses should be limited based on dnalen, it has more to do with values stored in sperm and egg, and with the number of compatable chromosomes. Even in nature the failed crosses interact and cost energy to both involved parties.

[Numsgil]

It only results in broken code if the two parents' DNA are mostly unrelated.  If they are entirely unrelated, then it's just a 50/50 gamble on which DNA the child gets.  Meaning that in such a union the child is not only not broken, but is actually just a clone of either parent.

[gymsum]

It only results in broken code if the two parents' DNA are mostly unrelated.  If they are entirely unrelated, then it's just a 50/50 gamble on which DNA the child gets.  Meaning that in such a union the child is not only not broken, but is actually just a clone of either parent.

That shouldn't be hard to correct, just let the remaining unmatched pairs form broken codes, they'll only contain ethier side of the entire dna, so the parts combined will work, while the rest will fall apart.

[Numsgil]

But if none of the code gets matched, then whichever DNA the child gets will be fully functional.  This wouldn't be a problem if the DNA was that of the mother.  But when it's the Father's DNA, it's unbalanced and unfair.

[bacillus]

.sexrepro is powerful indeed, either you get a free copy of yourself, or some twisted offspring is produced, axing right through the parent's nrg and probably creating some twisted offspring that does nothing.
There's an idea; make a bot that forces 99 .sexrepro, and then feed on the weakened(likely, but not every time) offspring while the victim dies.

[EricL]

I suggest we do the following simple, easily implimented fixes:

1) Disallow .sexrepro if the parents have 0 matching sub-sequences.
2) Allow bots to override .fertilized, allowing for the disposal of sperm it doesn't want or for keeping it longer if it does.

[Moonfisher]

Sounds like a good idea, rape shouldn't be a way to just take over the oponent, makes it too powerfull, an evo bot with a broken rape gene could probably whipe a whole sim

[Numsgil]

Sounds good to me, too.

[gymsum]

Agreed.

[Peksa]

Yep, sounds good.

[abyaly]

I suggest we do the following simple, easily implimented fixes:

1) Disallow .sexrepro if the parents have 0 matching sub-sequences.
2) Allow bots to override .fertilized, allowing for the disposal of sperm it doesn't want or for keeping it longer if it does.

Subsequences of what length?